Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London County Council (Money) Bill (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

London County Council (Money) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time.

Windermere Urban District Council Bill.

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Corn Exchange Company Bill [Lords].

Read a Second time, and committed.

Pacific Cable Board Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Leyton, Morley, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and Tintwistle," presented by Mr. Chamberlain; read the First time; and to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD PRICES (MILK).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received the Report of the Food Council upon milk prices; and when it will be published?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The Report was published on 14th March.

Mr. MORRISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take, any action?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that the Food Council, carrying out their usual procedure, have sent their Report, concurrently with publishing it, to both the associations concerned.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied as to the accuracy of the trade figures included in the Report? There are extraordinary differences shown.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly, I could not pronounce on that. The ordinary course which is followed in these matters is that the Food Council, after very careful investigation, make their Report, and send that Report to the people who are affected or criticised in it. The people have an opportunity of making any answer they wish, and the Food Council, I suppose, consider any reply that may be made. I think it would not be right for me to express an opinion.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the discrepancy between a net profit of 10.8 per cent. on a turnover of £500,000 in one case, and only 2.8 per cent. net profit on a turnover of £5,500,000 in another case?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure what inference the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw from that.

Mr. MONTAGUE: That public enterprise does not pay!

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should be sorry to be drawn into an argument, but I gather that the small profit on a large turnover, and probably a large dividend, is a case of private enterprise.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY DEBTS DEPARTMENT.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many ex-service temporary civil servants employed in the clearing office, enemy debts branch, have received notice of discharge; and whether any alternative employment has been or will be offered to them?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Ten men have received notice of discharge for the 31st March in consequence of reduction in work. Every endeavour will be made both departmentally and through the Joint Substitution Board to provide alternative employment for them after that date, though not necessarily in their present grades, but it is not possible at present to make any definite statement.

Mr. MORRISON: In view of these engagements terminating in a fortnight's time on 31st March, could not some steps be taken to see that men who have already been for something like eight years in Government employment and have proved satisfactory, are not turned into the street?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman suggests. If he suggests that I should keep a staff on with the Clearing Office when their work is finished, that I could not do. It would be most improper to keep a temporary department going when its work was finished. Every effort is being made, through the Joint Substitution Board, to find employment for these men, and that is the regular practice. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that every effort will be made.

Mr. KELLY: Is the office closing down on 31st March consequent upon the recent report of the Treasury?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, it is the result of the work of a temporary department drawing to its close.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.

Mr. BECKETT: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many films have been produced in this country to meet the quota requirements; and how many of these were financed by foreign capital to meet the quota requirements of foreign interests?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: 263 British films, including 118 long films, have been registered, and of these 234 were produced in this country. I have not the necessary information to answer the second part of the question.

Mr. BECKETT: Has the right hon. Gentleman any ground for thinking that it would be advisable to try to get that information?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, none. I am delighted that capital should be invested in the British film industry, whether that capital is British or foreign.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that American renters are financing very bad and cheap films, and that they are block-booking them as a condition of getting a long film, and that in 12 months the British film industry will be excluded?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. I have never heard a more gross travesty of the working and the success of the Act. If it should be a fact that any American producers produce bad British films—I do not know that they are doing so—there is an ample number of admirable British films to take their place.

Mr. DAY: In that total of 234, does the right hon. Gentleman include any talking films?

Mr. BECKETT: If the right hon. Gentleman sees any prominent figure in the British film industry, he will find that what I stated is not a travesty but the fact.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not the case that the production of the 234 shows the great success of the Cinematograph Films Act in encouraging the film industry in this country?

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the attempt by American film interests to prevent American talking pictures from being projected in British cinemas on British apparatus, he will introduce legislation making it a condition of the exhibition of such films that the apparatus, or a certain proportion of the apparatus, used for the purpose shall be of British manufacture?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 5th March.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that these American talking films cannot be portrayed on British machines, but must be portrayed on American machines, and will the right hon. Gentleman not con-
sider amending the Act so that the British film industry, with reference to machines, can have an opportunity of showing these films?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; there is no such provision, I understand. There is a contract by which certain films must be shown on either American machines or machines that give equally good results. Plainly, it would be a contract—I speak subject to legal correction—in restraint of trade if people were not free to show these films on any machines, English or otherwise, which gave equally good results. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's offer to assist me in any necessary extension of the Cinematograph Films Act.

Sir W. WAYLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if all this talking apparatus were made in the Unified Kingdom, it would mean orders for British manufacturers to the extent of £3,000,000 to £4,000,000?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In reference to the last part of the question, asking that a certain proportion of the apparatus should be of British manufacture, is it not more important that the voices of the actors should be of British manufacture instead of having the Amercian accent?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SHIPPING RATES (AUSTRALIA).

Mr. WELLOCK: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can say whether any and, if so, what changes have taken place this year in the shipping freights between Australia and this country; and whether such changes have had any appreciable effect upon the volume of shipping on the routes concerned?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am informed that the Australian Conference Lines have made no changes this year in shipping freights between Australia and this country except in respect of wheat, the rates on which, as is customary with the lines, have been varied from time to time to correspond to the rates secured by tramp tonnage in that trade. Since January the rates for wheat by both liners and tramps have, on the whole,
tended to fall, the fall varying from 15 per cent. to 25 per cent. The number of factors involved make it impossible to say what effect, if any, such changes have had on the volume of shipping on the routes concerned.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to find some better word than "tramps" for an invaluable type of British merchant vessel?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: They are an invaluable type of ship, but they have a historic tradition, and the name of "tramp" is not a term of disrespect, but is rather a household name of which we are all proud.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: Is it not a fact that tramp tonnage and liner tonnage for the conveyance of wheat have been operating on an unprofitable basis for many years?

GAS MANTLES (PRODUCTION).

Mr. HANNON: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the production of gas mantles in this country in 1925 and 1928, respectively, and what proportion of home consumption was met by the British and foreign producer, respectively, in each of those years?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Complete data of the production of gas mantles in this country in the years specified are not available. From the information supplied to me by the manufacturers, it is estimated that the numbers produced were about 310,000 gross in 1925 and about 355,000 gross in 1928; and that imported mantles accounted for about 40 per cent. of the number available for use in this country in 1925, and for less than 5 per cent. of the number available in 1928.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to state what is the sum paid by the users of British mantles towards the German combines?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, I am not. I can only reply, as I think I have informed the hon. Member previously, that, but for the tax which is now on, there would not be any production of gas mantles at all in this country.

Sir HENRY JACKSON: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether it is a fact that the number of people employed in this industry has risen from 1,700 in the last quarter of 1924 to 2,200 in the last quarter of 1928?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I know that there has been a distinct improvement, but I am not quite sure what the figures are.

Mr. HARRIS: Arising out of the answer to the Supplementary Question of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn), could not the right hon. Gentleman, as President of the Board of Trade, find out what is the commission paid to the German manufacturers, or is he not able to get the information; is he not competent to obtain it?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Member puts a question on the Order Paper, and it comes within the province of my Department—and I am not sure that this does—I will do my best to answer it.

Mr. BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that a bonus is paid to the German manufacturers?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION.

Mr. T. SHAW: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how much money was granted or taken up by the Government as capital for the development of dyestuff production in this country between 1914 and 1924; and what proportion of this sum was invested in the British Dyestuffs Corporation.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The total amount granted and taken up by the Government as capital for the development of dyestuff production in this country between 1914 and 1924 was £2,005,751, of which £1,700,001 was invested in the British Dyestuffs Corporation.

Mr. SHAW: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government has sold out its holdings in the British Dyestuffs Corporation; and, if so, for what sum?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Government holding in the British Dye-stuffs Corporation was disposed of in March, 1926, for the sum of £600,000.

Mr. BENN: The business Government.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The investment was made when the hon. Gentleman's late party was in office.

Mr. SHAW: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any information as to whether the combination arrived at between German and British dyestuffs producers delimits areas of sale, arranges certain quota quantities, or regulates prices?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not aware of any combination or agreement between German and British dye makers.

Mr. SHAW: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he does not know anything about any arrangement?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, I am not aware of any such arrangement or agreement with Germany.

Mr. HARRIS: If there were any such arrangement, would the Government be prepared to reconsider their decision in reference to the protection of the dye industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is a hypothetical question, but, there being no such arrangement, it obviously does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARSENAL, WOOLWICH (BOYS).

Mr. KELLY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of boys engaged on explosives work in the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The number of male employés under 21 years of age engaged on explosives work at War Department establishments at the Royal Arsenal is approximately 270.

Mr. KELLY: Are any boys employed where there is danger of explosion?

Mr. COOPER: A certain number.

Mr. KELLY: Is it not inadvisable that any boys should be employed on work where there is danger of explosion?

Mr. COOPER: They are not engaged in any work in which the employment of youths is more likely to lead to explosion than the employment of older men.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this work is suitable for boys of the age mentioned; and will he see that they are replaced by men?

Mr. COOPER: The work is perfectly suitable for boys.

Mr. MACLEAN: Work in an explosives factory! Would you send your boy there?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of his recommendation in Circular No. 2,292 (Methods of Treatment), issued on 16th January, 1929, if he is aware that recently lads between the ages of 16 and 21 have been sent to prison for periods of five days and longer owing to their not having been given time to pay the fine imposed; and will he take further steps to put his views on this subject before the magistrates and justices of juvenile and ordinary Courts?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): My attention has not been drawn to any case of the kind to which the hon. Member refers. If he will furnish me with particulars of any cases which he has in mind I shall consider whether further action on my part is called for.

TRAWLING REGULATIONS (CLYDE).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what decision he has come to in regard to the recent proposal to permit trawling in an area of the Clyde hitherto closed to trawling?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have decided that in present circumstances I should not confirm this bylaw. As I have indicated in previous replies the whole question of territorial waters in its international aspects is at the present time the subject of a general review, and I do not think that it would be expedient to take any partial action in the direction of modifying existing restrictions on trawling which might prejudice or complicate the wider issues. Moreover, I am bound to say that the flagrant contraventions of the law which have been committed by a
section of the trawlers in recent years in the Clyde area make it very difficult to justify a concession to the trawling interests concerned. I wish, however, to make it clear that a careful examination of the objections to the bylaw reveals no evidence whatever to support the view that the limited relaxation which the Fishery Board proposed after the most careful inquiry would be detrimental to the local fishing. From the purely scientific aspect it appears to me that the Fishery Board were fully justified in submitting this bylaw.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the find mgs of Lord Mackenzie's Committee which, as recently as 1924, went into the whole subject publicly, in every part of Scotland where there are fishing areas; and what contradiction of the evidence then laid has there been in this subsequent evidence which would lead to a private inquiry upsetting the findings of a public inquiry?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The circumstances, of course, are bound to be reviewed from time to time by the Department in making use of scientific research in connection with the matter. Whatever decision the Mackenzie Committee may have come to, the circumstances have to be reviewed.

Mr. MACLEAN: What evidence was taken from the men engaged in the fishing industry on the Clyde with regard to this inquiry before the Fishery Board came to a decision?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, the Fishery Board are conversant with all the circumstances in regard to every branch of the industry. They make a proposal and publish it so that it may be examined, and they then receive the observations of any parties concerned. In this case, those observations have been received and considered.

Mr. MACLEAN: Has there not been a unanimous protest from all concerned in the fishing industry on the Clyde; and does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Fishery Board went fully into the matter, since from all parts of the Clyde there are protests against the decision?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir, but, as I have explained, I think those protests are unjustified from the scientific point of view.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Aberdeen trawl-owners do not want this permission and that I have just ascertained from the Lord Provost to-day that he was opposed to it? The Scottish trawlers do not want it; it is a mere invasion of the English trawlers?

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYÉS, GLASGOW (TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP),

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 15.
asked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the action of the Glasgow Corporation in refusing recognition to a non-political union of municipal employés and making membership of the political trade union a condition of engagement or retention of employment; and whether he will take action against the corporation for breach of the recent Trade Union Act?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): My attention has not previously been called to the matter referred to by my hon. and learned Friend. I am not aware that I have any power to take action regarding it.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If I supply the right hon. and learned Gentleman with particulars of this case, will he go into them? Is he aware of the fact that thousands have left the non-political union and joined the other as a result of the non-political union not getting recognition; and is this not a distinct breach of one of the Sections of the Trade Union Act and will he—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is putting his Supplementary Question at too great length.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is not the Glasgow Corporation, in refusing recognition to a non-political trade union, merely following the example set by Lord Melchett in connection with the "peace in industry" stunt?

EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEES, GLASGOW AND PARTICK.

Mr. BROAD: 54.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Glasgow Central Local Employment Committee has not had a chairman for 18 months and that no meetings have been
held since April, 1928, and that the Partick, Glasgow, Local Employment Committee has had no meeting since 1927; and what is the total number of local employment committees and how many have had no meetings within the past six months?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The chairman of the Central Glasgow Employment Committee resigned on 30th May, 1928, and a new chairman was appointed on 22nd February last. The committee met on the 13th March. The Partick Employment Committee met on 11th December last. The total number of local employment committees is 329. Of these, 11 have held no meetings within the past six months.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

LABOUR CONDITIONS (GREAT BRITAIN, GERMANY AND POLAND).

Mr. HARRIS: 16.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any available information giving the comparative wages and hours worked by miners in this country, in Silesia on the Polish side, and in the mines located in Germany adjacent to the Polish border; if so, what are the hours and wages in the three places: and if the differences in the hours and labour have been brought to the attention of the International Labour Office at Geneva and have been considered and reported on there?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): A Report giving comparative particulars of wages and hours of labour in the coal mining industry at home and abroad was published early in 1928 by the International Labour Office. If the hon. Member will read the Report, a copy of which is available in the Library, I think he will agree that the subject is too complicated to enable me to give the information asked for in the second part of his question.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that the terribly low wages and long hours of Polish miners as compared with British and German miners is one of the primary causes of the dislocation of the coal industry in this country; and does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think it would
be worth while for his Department to make a report on the subject?

Commodore KING: Without doubt, low wages and long hours intensify the competition which our coal industry has to face.

TRADING LOSS (COST OF SALES AGENCIES).

The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. POTTS:
17. "To ask the Secretary for Mines, whether in the coal-mining industry sales agency commission deducted from the actual coal proceeds received inland and abroad was an amount sufficient to cover costs of sales agencies and what were the assumed ascertained colliery losses in the mining industry of Great Britain for the year ending December, 1928.

Mr. POTTS: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman answers this question, may I point out that the two words "what were" have been inserted by error and alter the meaning of the question?

Commodore KING: I shall endeavour to answer the question as I understand it. I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. It is estimated that the total trading loss in the coal-mining industry in 1928 was between £10,000,000 and £11,000,000.

Mr. POTTS: What I want to know is what was the cost of the agencies and the losses—which last, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has now given. Those two words "what were" divide the question into two parts which was not my intention. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look into the matter and give the House some information as to the cost of the agencies.

ACCIDENT, HALESOWEN.

Mr. WELLOCK (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make any statement in regard to the loss of eight miners' lives in the Coombs Wood pit, Halesowen.

Commodore KING: I received a preliminary report of this accident by telephone about 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon. I am informed that a fire occurred about 400 yards from the shaft on an intake road leading into a small district. The fire, which started about 7.30 a.m. yesterday, began at a brattice cloth and
spread to the adjacent timber and the coal on each side; the origin of the fire is not at present known. Nine men were at work on the inbye side of the fire and only one of them succeeded in escaping. Immediate steps were taken towards extinguishing the fire in order to reach the men, but two rescue brigades who had been called from the Dudley Station were beaten back by the smoke. Later a fall of roof occurred which partially extinguished the fire, and eventually a road was made over the fall and the fire was finally extinguished with water about 3 p.m. The rescue brigades were then able to enter the district and found the eight men dead. Some of the bodies were in the intake and some in the return airway, and all had been dead for some hours when found. News of the accident reached the office of the Divisional Inspector of Mines about 10.30 a.m. yesterday, and he proceeded immediately to the colliery in company with another inspector and remained there until the fire had been subdued and the bodies recovered. On receipt of his preliminary report I instructed the Deputy Chief Inspector of Mines to proceed to the spot, and he is now at the colliery with the Divisional Inspector, and full investigation is being made into the causes and circumstances of the disaster. I should like to express sincere sympathy with the bereaved relatives.

Mr. HARDIE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned the intake and the return airway. That would mean one way in and another way out. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean that there was a way out, and, if so, what prevented the men getting round to it?

Commodore KING: I cannot give details. I think hon. Members will understand that until I have a report from the inspectors on the spot, when I shall in all probability receive a plan of the actual scene of the accident, I really cannot be expected to give the details asked for.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Was this a naked light pit?

Commodore KING: Yes, it was.

Mr. HARDIE: I want to know whether the men had to pass through the brattice cloth, and what time elapsed before the
fire was discovered. The reports we get from the inspectors often leave out most important points. We want to find out what time elapsed before the fire was discovered, and whether the mine was inspected before the men went down the pit?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better wait until the Secretary for Mines has received a report.

Mr. HARDIE: I am asking for a statement.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Secretary for Mines cannot make a statement until he has received the report.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SHIP'S FUEL (PULVERISED COAL).

Mr. AMMON: 18.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Department for Scientific Research has undertaken any experiments as to the use of pulverised coal fuel for the Royal Navy; what has been the nature of the experiments; and with what measure of success?

Commodore KING: The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research have not been asked to undertake any experiments on the use of pulverised fuel for the Royal Navy.

Mr. AMMON: Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman not hear the First Lord say that investigations were being carried out for that purpose?

Commodore KING: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend may have been referring to the activities of the Fuel Research Board and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. That Department is, of course, carrying out fundamental research in the combustion of pulverised fuel which can be used not only for sea purposes, but also on land.

Mr. AMMON: 42.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of ships and their categories burning coal fuel?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): 134 vessels burn coal and seven coal and oil. With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The details are as follow:

Vessels burning coal:


Cruisers
3


Sloops
24


Minesweepers
29


Gunboats
3


Whaler
1


Depot Ships
10


Repair Ship
1


Minelayers
2


Surveying Vessels
8


Fishery Protection Gunboats
8


Trawlers
5


Drifters
29


Tugs
5


Hospital Ship
1


Special Service Vessels
3


Small Tenders
2


Total
134

The seven vessels which burn coal and oil are:


Battleships
4


Gunboats
3

GRAVING DOCK, SINGAPORE.

Mr. AMMON: 43.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the borings for the foundations of the graving dock at Singapore have been successful; and whether the graving dock has been commenced?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Contract for the dock and other works has been let and preliminary work commenced.

Mr. AMMON: Have they actually started on the graving dock?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Everything is in order for the work to begin.

ROYAL FLEET AUXILIARY SERVICE (PENSIONS).

Sir BASIL PETO (by Private Notice): asked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now make any statement as to the provision of Pensions for officers and engineer officers serving in Royal Naval Fleet Auxiliaries which was brought to the notice of the Admiralty in 1926 by Deputation from the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, Mercantile Marine Service Association and Marine Engineers' Association?

Mr. THURTLE: Before this question is answered, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what element of urgency there is in it in view of the fact that the hour for questions is now passed?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not sure that the hour for questions is yet passed, but the matter of urgency I took fully into consideration before allowing the question, and the hon. Member must allow me to decide.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Proposals for making the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service a pensionable one have been receiving consideration, and a scheme has been worked out which is expected to prove satisfactory to all concerned. It is anticipated that the scheme will be brought into operation during the ensuing financial year.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In view of the very long time that this question has been outstanding, will the hon. and gallant Member say whether in making this service pensionable it will be retrospective?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: That is one of the matters which has been under consideration, but I cannot give a definite answer at the moment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give me an answer on that point when he answers my question to-morrow?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It would be somewhat difficult because the matter is not yet fully arranged. The point which the hon. Gentleman has brought to my attention is one which is receiving consideration.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the proposed pensions will be at least equal to those paid for some years by the best firms of shipowners?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am sure we shall do everything that is right and proper, and the pensions we offer will be in accordance with the usual scale.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the pay of these officers at the present time is less than in the private shipping firms?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY TUNNEL REPAIRS (DANGER SIGNALS).

Mr. DAY: 20.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that workmen employed on the Morley tunnel, near Leeds, only narrowly averted a crowded train from the danger of being wrecked after they had discovered that a large amount of old masonry had fallen and was blocking the main down line, this train only being saved by one of the workmen running to the end of the tunnel and notifying the Morley signal box of the happening; and will he recommend to the various railway companies that some electrical or other arrangement of signalling should be in operation during repairs of a similar nature?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The railway company have informed me of the detailed measures adopted by thorn in order to secure safety in working during the repair of the Morley Tunnel to which the hon. Member refers, and I am advised that these measures are adequate.

Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that the details mentioned in my question are not correct?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, I do not say that the hon. Gentleman's statements are inaccurate—that would be rude. My information, however, does not agree with the information of the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps he will allow me to send him my information, and then we can talk over the matter.

LEVEL CROSSING, WENNINGTON (ACCIDENT).

Mr. DAY: 21.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received a report of an accident which occurred at a level crossing near Wennington, between Rainham and Purfleet, on Sunday, 10th March, in which a train from Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street dashed into a herd of 500 cows; what regulations exist in order that railway companies should have gates closed at all level crossings during the passage of trains; and does he propose to hold an inquiry?

Colonel ASHLEY: It appears, from the railway company's return, that the accident to which the hon. Member refers occurred at an occupation level crossing. It is not for the railway companies to provide attendance at such crossings, and it is the duty of persons using them to take reasonable steps to see that they can he used in safety. I do not propose to hold an inquiry into this particular accident.

Mr. DAY: Would not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman then consider insisting that gates should be put across crossings of this kind, so that a large number of cattle could not be slaughtered in this way?

Colonel ASHLEY: I presume there were gates across this level crossing.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. and and gallant Gentleman say, from his information, whether the gates were open or shut?

Colonel ASHLEY: Obviously they must have been open, or the cows could not have got on to the line.

GAS EXPLOSION, HOLBORN (ROAD REPAIRS).

Sir R. THOMAS: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can give an estimate of the date when the streets damaged by the gas explosion in Holborn are expected to be again open for traffic?

Colonel ASHLEY: The borough council have let contracts for the whole of the road reinstatement, but this cannot be commenced until the various statutory authorities have completed the work on their mains and services. The contracts provide for continuous working night and day. It is hoped that High Holborn will be open to traffic in May and the remainder of the streets a month later.

ROAD CONSTRUCTION (EMPLOYMENT).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated number of men for whom work would be found on road construction per £1,000,000 of expenditure?

Colonel ASHLEY: An estimate of this sort is largely governed by various local conditions and by the character of the work itself. If the works were predominantly undertaken in urban areas on the most economical terms, a figure of
2,000 men employed direct upon the work for a year for each £1,000,000 expended would probably be a reasonable estimate. If the works consisted largely of selected schemes in rural areas which admitted of a high proportion of manual labour, the figure of men employed for one year direct on the works might be increased to as much as 2,500. No sufficient data exist to enable a useful estimate to be framed as regards the volume of employment provided away from the actual site of the works, but it is commonly assumed that every man employed on the actual works would entail another man indirectly employed in producing and transporting materials and in other ways, and this assumption may not be unreasonable.

FORTH AND CLYDE CANAL SCHEME.

Captain FANSHAWE: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport if the shipping companies have been consulted with regard to the commercial possibilities of a ship canal between the Forth and Clyde; and if they are in favour of the scheme or otherwise?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have no specific information on the points raised. It would, I think, be for the advocates of the canal, if they desire to learn the views of shipping companies or other parties, to take steps themselves to obtain such information as they require.

Mr. COUPER: What were the names of the shipping companies referred to?

Colonel ASHLEY: As I did not ask them, I cannot tell my hon. Friend.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared to make some inquiry locally into this matter, in order to find out how much support there is for the project?

Colonel ASHLEY: It is a question, not so much of what support there is, but of whether the canal would pay, and whether the shipping would ever use it if it were built.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is not that a matter that could be gone into if there were a local inquiry by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department?

Colonel ASHLEY: No. So far as the information available goes—I am speaking from recollection—it would cost from £40,000,000 to £50,000,000, and, from all
the information I have so far received, there would be no considerable volume of shipping using it if it were built.

CHARING CROSS BRIDGE AND RAILWAY STATION.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is yet in a position to say when a decision is likely to be arrived at regarding the removal of Charing Cross Station to the south side of the river and the building of a new road bridge to replace the existing railway bridge?

Colonel ASHLEY: At the present time I am not in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) on the 22nd January last, a copy of which I am forwarding to my hon. Friend.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman doing anything to expedite this scheme, or have we got to wait till there is a change of Government for something to be done?

Colonel ASHLEY: I should say that, if there were a change of Government, which is most unlikely, that Government would find this scheme in a very advanced stage.

Mr. HARRIS: Why cannot the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make a statement to the House, and let us know what the advanced stage is?

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member must know that, when negotiations are going on between parties, you cannot make the information public.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of the Southern Railway Company said, at the general meeting of the company, that the matter was now entirely in the hands of the Government?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have not observed the statement quoted by my hon. Friend, but the matter cannot be entirely in the hands of the Government when two other parties are negotiating.

TEES DOCKS.

Sir PARK GOFF: 26.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, owing to the fact that the Tees Conservancy have
now decided that an increase of dock accommodation is necessary, he has had any further communication with them with regard to the large natural basin of 604 acres at the mouth of the Tees?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have had no recent communication with the Tees Conservancy Commission on this subject, but I will inquire into the present position and inform my hon. Friend of the result in due course.

Sir P. GOFF: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that this scheme would give employment to thousands in that distressed area over a long period of years?

Colonel ASHLEY: No doubt I shall know all about that when I have made the inquiry.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is there not already far more dock accommodation than is demanded?

TAY BRIDGE SCHEME.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the engineering reports bearing on she proposed Tay road-bridge are now in his hands; and, if so, what are the findings?

Colonel ASHLEY: The engineering reports have not yet reached me, but I am informed that their preparation is well advanced.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Seeing that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman admitted that they were not in his hands in November last, can anything be done to facilitate the production of the plans, in order to give the next Government a chance to start with this big undertaking as soon as possible?

Colonel ASHLEY: I hope to get the reports in May.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEGRAPH RATES (ADDRESSES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 28.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the American telegraph companies make no additional charge for the address on a telegram, with the result that the address is invariably given in full and much time, labour, and loss is avoided owing to the absence of incorrectly addressed telegrams; and whether
he will consider adopting the same system here in order to further popularise the Post Office telegraph service?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): Reversion to the system of free addresses, which was abolished in this country in 1885, might obviate trouble in certain cases, but would entail the signalling of additional words in a far larger number and would involve a considerable sacrifice of revenue. Having regard to the heavy loss on the telegraph service, I could not contemplate it except in conjunction with a substantial increase in the tariff rate for the text, and as I have already stated it has been decided that rates shall not be increased to the public.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say about how much the loss would be?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is impossible to make anything like an accurate estimate, but in 1871 it was found that the number of words in the addresses had grown to as much as 12.

Lord APSLEY: Is it not a fact that the American telegraph service is run by private companies and that they make no loss?

Mr. WELLOCK: Is it not also the case that their charges are higher?

AMBULANCE TELEPHONE CALLS.

Mr. DAY: 30.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to an inquest held at Hammersmith on Harold Gordon Nash, aged 8, of Oranbrook Road, Chiswick, in which the evidence disclosed the fact that when the Chiswick ambulance was telephoned for the operator stated the line was engaged; and whether he will give instruction that in future all ambulance calls shall be put through immediately?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: All ambulance calls are dealt with specially and are at once connected with an ambulance station if this is possible. In the case referred to the first call made at 4.40 p.m. was put through—with the caller's assent—to the Acton ambulance station as the line to the Chiswick station was engaged at the time. A second call made from another number at 4.45 p.m.
was connected with the Chiswick ambulance number, which was then free. There was no delay in dealing with the calls.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the evidence given that the line was engaged at the time was correct?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes.

Mr. DAY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it would be much better always to put an ambulance call through to the nearest station immediately?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: If the station is engaged on another ambulance call, you cannot interrupt that.

ALLERTON (POSTAL ADDRESS).

Mr. TINNE: 31.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the postal authorities have caused great inconvenience and annoyance to the inhabitants of Allerton by altering their address to Mossley Hill; and will he instruct the local postmaster to arrange for the delivery of postal matter in the Allerton district as hitherto?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The district known generally as Allerton has been served for many years from the Mossley Hill Sub-District Post Office of Liverpool, with the exception of a small area which is served from the Woolton Sub-Post Office. No recent change has been made in the local postal arrangements and none is contemplated.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the social advantages of living at Mossley Hill as compared with Allerton far outweigh any physical disadvantages?

PRIVATE FRANKING MACHINES.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of postal franking machines in use in this country; and whether it is proposed to allow a rebate on the postage?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Approximately 2,250 private postal franking machines are in use in this country. For the reasons given on the 14th instant, in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bradford, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Gadie), I am unable to grant any rebate to users.

Mr. RAMSDEN: If it can be shown to my right hon. Friend that there would be a saving by the use of this machine, will he reconsider his decision?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I will consider any evidence that may be put before me.

Mr. DAY: Are these franking machines made in Britain?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I could not answer that question.

FIRES AND EXPLOSIONS (PREVENTION).

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 33.
asked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the fact that during the recent fire at Llandudno Post Office a Post Office engineer prevented a fireman from spraying the switchboard gear with water, thus averting serious explosions; what steps are taken to avoid such a possibility occurring in offices having a large equipment of electrical gear; and will he give an assurance that, since discontinuance of the night telegraph service at Dundee, the head office telegraph department safeguarded against fire by men having the technical knowledge to immediately deal with an outbreak of fire in that department?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Post Office engineer prevented the fire brigade from spraying the power plant with water in order to minimise damage, but there was no risk of an explosion. At Dundee, as at all telephone exchanges of comparable size, engineers are continuously in attendance. As the Dundee exchange is housed in the head post office, these officers are in a position to safeguard all the plant (both telephone and telegraph) in the building.

LANDSCAPE DISFIGUREMENT (TELEGRAPH POLES).

Sir R. THOMAS: 34.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that many villages and scenes of natural or artificial beatuy are disfigured by telegraph poles; and whether, in view of the economic value of such places as attractions to tourists, he will circularise local authorities announcing his willingness to consider means for the removal, where possible, of disfigurements for which his Department is responsible upon the receipt of suggestions from the local authorities concerned?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Every endeavour is made to preserve amenities but it is essential to the development of the telephone service that the costs of construction and maintenance should be kept low. I regret I should not be justified in incurring unremunerative expenditure in removing existing pole lines. I am willing to consider any suggestions made by local authorities provided that the cost of removal does not fall on the Post Office.

FACILITIES, CARDIFF.

Sir R. THOMAS: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General why although the head post office in Cardiff is stated to be open for business till 9 p.m., money orders are not isued after 8 p.m., although postal orders are obtainable up to 9 p.m.; and whether this rule is in force everywhere?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The head post office at Cardiff (and at a few-other of the larger provincial towns) is open until 9 p.m. for the more urgent kinds of postal business. Money Order business, however, is not transacted later than 8 p.m. at any offices in the country except the chief office in London. I have had little, if any, public demand for such an extension, which would entail additional staff and give rise to accounting difficulties.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of a very serious anomaly; for instance, at the Cardiff office is it not a fact that you can apply from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. for a money order, say for £7, on which the poundage is 6d. and it cannot be granted; but if you ask for seven postal orders in £1 denominations, you can get them, and the poundage is 1s. 2d.? Why should the public be inconvenienced in that way?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Sir R. THOMAS: Am I not entitled to an answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question seems too complicated to put as a supplementary question.

Sir R. THOMAS: With all respect—

Mr. SPEAKER: If all supplementary questions were of the sort which the hon. Member is now putting we should never get to the end of questions.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Perhaps I may explain quite shortly that the accountancy processes for postal orders and money orders are quite different. Postal orders require much less accountancy than money orders.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 36.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of telephones in use per 1,000 of population of London, Berlin, and New York?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The figures at the end of December, 1927 (the latest date for which comparable statistics are available), were as follow:


London
96


Berlin
111


New York
263

CONTRACT WORK, EDINBURGH.

Dr. SHIELS: 37.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the nature of the work given out to private contract in the Edinburgh district; why this work cannot be done by the Post Office engineering staff; and, in view of the number of men, many of them ex-service men, who have been dismissed from the engineering department during the last 12 months, will he consider finding as full work as possible for the men in this department?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Contract work in progress in the Edinburgh district consists of exchange equipment, power plant and duct laying. The contract covers manufacture and installation of equipment and plant. As regards duct laying, the labour is mainly excavation and reinstatement and is in my opinion more appropriate to contractors who regularly carry out work of this character. No Post Office staff is discharged if suitable employment is available.

Dr. SHIELS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be more in keeping with the Prime Minister's letter if the Department took every effort to conserve and expand the occupation of those who are employed in this particular Department, and is he aware that a great many men have been discharged, and that work is being done by contractors which should have been done by them, and does he not agree that that is a hardship?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Every effort is made, and I can only say that the Department endeavour to avoid the discharge of Post Office labour, but the actual work of duct-laying is not work upon which the Post Office engineering department have been or would be normally employed.

SUB-POSTMASTERS (REMUNERATION).

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 38.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the extension of telephones in rural areas, he will consider the raising of fees paid to village postmasters; and whether, on account of the increase of work, he will have their salaries on telephone account revised more frequently than every three years?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The remuneration of sub-postmasters for telephone exchange working is based on an agreement with the Sub-Postmasters' Federation. The principle of triennial revision applies to the remuneration of sub-postmasters as a whole; but interim revisions are granted where the growth of work is abnormal. I do not think that these arrangements stand in need of modification at present.

Brigadier-General-BROWN: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes postmasters to give adequate service, how is it possible for them to afford to pay assistants, which they have to, on the allowance that they get at present?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have said that the whole question of their remuneration is governed by an existing agreement, and that the remuneration is revised triennially.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

FINAL AWARDS.

Sir WILLIAM EDGE: 39.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of final awards which have been reviewed since the Government came into office?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): In about 6,000 current cases increased grants have during this period been made on review, including cases of second or supervening disability and re-amputation. The total number of
cases thus dealt with is less than 1 per cent. of the whole number of final awards which have been made.

DISABILITY PENSIONS (MR. E. GILLETT).

Mr. POTTS: 40.
asked the Minister of Pensions what procedure he proposes respecting Mr. Ernest Gillett's increased pension claim, having regard to the fact now proved that chronic arthritis, originated in the right leg, injured the knee, spread to the entire right leg, then to the right arm, partially left the right arm and extended to the left leg, resulting in total paralysis of both legs; and, having regard to the fact that Gillett states that he has no knowledge of any statement written by him implying that his accident arose when he was off duty, is he prepared to produce this statement?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The fact alleged by the hon. Member has not been proved. The paralysis to which he refers commenced in the left leg, and not until several years after Mr. Gillett's discharge; my right hon. Friend is advised that it cannot be held to be connected with the injury to the right knee which has been accepted. The statement referred to in the last paragraph of the question is contained in the official records of the War Office. The circumstances of the original disability are not, however, of importance for the hon. Member's purpose, since that injury was accepted for compensation.

Mr. POTTS: Is it not a fact that it is stated in some of the documents that both right and left legs are affected, and did not the right hon. Gentleman state in the House a few nights ago that the trouble was in the right leg, and now he says that it is the left leg?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I am sorry that I cannot persuade the hon. Member to realise the difference between the right and the left legs. I have told him all along that the disability of arthritis of the knee originated in the right leg, and for that we have pensioned Mr. Gillett. Subsequently, paralysis set in in the left leg, and we say that that is not connected with the injury to the right knee, and cannot be accepted for pension.

Mr. POTTS: I am entitled to have the latter part of this question answered. Only a few nights ago, in discussing this matter—[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: We had this matter thrashed out on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. POTTS: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a further question. [Interruption.] I will wait until I get order. Is it not a fact that, with regard to the point about where the accident happened, I have the documents in my hand, or copies of them—[Interruption]. It is a fact.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot argue his case now. This is not the time for argument.

Mr. POTTS: On a point of Order. It is in the question, and I am entitled to have it out on this question. The Department do not know where the information came from, and the document which I hold is a copy of it—[Interruption]. You will not get me down; I am the wrong man for that.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many of the families or individuals who since January, 1928, have applied for assisted passages to Canada and Australia have failed to satisfy the medical or other requirements of the Dominions; and how many, having satisfied those requirements, have been refused an assisted passage by the Dominion authorities and the Imperial authorities, respectively?

Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The Dominion authorities are unable to furnish the information asked for in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, no applicants are refused assisted passages, if they satisfy the medical tests, and also fulfil the other requirements of the Dominion Governments, that is to say, are going to approved employment and are likely to succeed in that employment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL PRICES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any further statement about the price of petrol and other oils?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I have just received a statement from the oil companies concerned. I have authorised the circulation of this statement to the Press. The document is a long one, however, and, if hon. Members would desire to have the opportunity of studying the complete text, I should be glad to lay it in full before Parliament as a White Paper.

Mr. THOMAS: May we take it that the answer is satisfactory to the Government, or not?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is much too early to say because it was only received for consideration this morning.

Mr. THOMAS: Would it not have been better for the Government to have considered the question, and to have given their judgment, having regard to the Prime Minister's statement?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I think it is a matter of such general interest that the fullest publicity is desirable.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the Prime Minister say if the answer is satisfactory to the consumers of petrol?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer has only just been received.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman information of a further rise in the price of petrol on the 1st April?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information either of a rise or a fall.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Is it proposed in the White Paper to add comments by the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I should like the hon. Gentleman to make his own comments.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We shall do that all right.

Mr. THURTLE: After having considered the statement, does the Prime Minister propose to make any further statement on the subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that that follows as a matter of course.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUSTOMS REVENUE (INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON).

Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLER: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount raised by customs tariffs per capita in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France, and Germany, respectively, for the last year for which figures are available?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The amounts in question are estimated as follow:

For the United Kingdom, £2 9s. 3d.
For the United States of America, $4.81.
For France, Francs 117.
For Germany, Marks 20.

I should, however, warn the House that such comparisons of the yield per head of the customs tariffs in different countries are apt to be altogether misleading and require to be utilised with caution. A low; revenue yield may result either from a low rate of duty or from a prohibitively high rate of duty. Some customs duties are countervailed by excise duties and others are not. Further, account should be taken of differences in the system of collection; for instance, the duties on tobacco are levied in some countries solely on the importation of the leaf, and in other countries are levied partly on importation of the leaf and partly, as excise duties, on the manufactured tobacco. I may add that of the British figure of £2 9s. 3d. per head £2 3s. 1d. is accounted for by duties which are avowedly revenue duties. In fact more than one-half of the figure is due to tobacco alone.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May we understand that after making allowance for countervailing or excise duties this country has the largest per capita Customs revenue in Europe?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that any deductions to be drawn from the facts mentioned in my answer should be made in the light of the reservations and explanations attached to that answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Sir B. PETO: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of the total claims and of the British
claims against Turkey that have not yet been considered by the international Commission set up in 1923 to assess claims for damages against the Turkish Government; and whether he will make urgent representations to the Commission to accelerate and complete their work?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that the total number of claims submitted to the Commission for the Assessment of Damage suffered in Turkey is 16,516, and that of these 14,792 have now been assessed. Of the total claims 4,969 were British, and of these 4,568 have now been assessed. Representations have been made to the Commission by the Governments concerned of the necessity of expediting their work, and His Majesty's Government are satisfied that all possible steps to this end are being taken by the British Delegate.

Sir B. PETO: As the assessment of the claims of British subjects is now very nearly complete, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of these people have been waiting for six years without any compensation, and that some of them are already dead? Will he therefore ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to bring his whole influence to bear in order to secure an expeditious settlement?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD FUND (TRANSFERS).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums contributed to the revenue by road users have been appropriated for general taxation in the years 1926–27, 1927–28 and 1928–29, respectively?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Under the arrangements explained in the Budget Statements for 1926 and 1927, £7,000,000 and £12,000,000 respectively were transferred from the Road Fund to the Exchequer in those years. The estimated Exchequer share of the motor registration duties, i.e., the luxury tax on private cars and motor cycles, is as follows:



£


1926–27
3,620,000


1927–28
4,171,000


1928–29
4,400,000


The duty on light oils, including other uses than for road locomotion, is estimated to produce £12,200,000 in the current year.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by luxury motor cars? Does he consider doctors' motor cars or farmers' motor cars luxury cars, or his own?

Mr. CHURCHILL: A proportion of the tax is considered to apply to the luxury use of cars, and is calculated in relation to the charges upon those more highly-priced cars which some persons are fortunate enough to be able to use.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEAMEN (REPATRIATION).

Mr. HAYDAY: 55.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to ratify the international convention of 1926 on repatriation of seamen; and, if not, will he state the reason why?

Mr. BETTERTON: The White Paper stating the action proposed by His Majesty's Government will be laid in due course before Parliament. I am not yet in a position to say when this will be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. KELLY (for Mr. WHITELEY): 44.
asked the Minister of Health the number of widows in receipt of pensions whose widowhood commenced before 4th January, 1926?

Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY (Treasurer of the Household): I have been asked to reply. On 31st December, 1928, the latest date for which particulars are available, 70,920 widows in England and Wales whose widowhood commenced before 4th January, 1926, were in receipt of widows' pensions under the contributory Pensions Act, 1925.

Mr. KELLY (for Mr. WHITELEY): 51.
asked the Minister of Health the number of children and orphans, respectively, in respect of whom allowances are paid and whose qualifications were previous to 4th January, 1926?

Sir G. HENNESSY: On 31st December, 1928, the latest date for which particulars are available, 128,146 children and 8,986 orphans, whose title was de-
rived from insured persons who died before 4th January, 1926, were in receipt of allowances and orphans' pensions respectively. These figures relate to England and Wales.

Mr. KELLY (for Mr. WHITELEY): 52.
asked the Minister of Health the number of applications for widows', children's, and orphans' pensions disallowed since the commencement of the Act, giving the principal reasons for disallowment?

Sir G. HENNESSY: The following particulars relate to England and Wales. Up to 7th March, 1929, 62,416 applications for widows' pensions, of which 44,773 related to widows whose husbands died before the commencement of the Act, and 3,441 applications for orphans' pensions, were rejected. Children's allowances form part of widows' pensions and no record has been kept of the number of children included in the rejected applications for widows' pensions. The main reasons for rejection were, as regards widows whose husbands died before the commencement of the Act (1) that there was no child under 14 years of age and (2) that the husband did not belong to the insurable class and, as regards widows whose husbands died after the commencement of the Act, (1) that the husband was not an insured person at the date of his death and (2) that the required number of contributions had not been paid by or in respect of him; as regards orphans, in addition to rejections owing to failure to satisfy the contribution tests, applications failed because in the case of claims based on the father's insurance, he was not a married man or a widower, and in the case of claims based on the mother's insurance, she was not a widow.

Mr. KELLY: I appreciate the answer which has been given, but, in view of the many cases of disallowance, will the hon. and gallant Member consider keeping a record of the reasons for such disallowances, so that we may know what has justified the Department in refusing a pension?

Sir G. HENNESSY: The observations of the hon. Member will, no doubt, be brought to the notice of the Minister.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: May I ask if the Prime Minister is now in a position to state what business will be taken on Friday next, and can he also say what business will be taken on the remaining days up to the Easter Adjournment?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. On Friday, we shall take the Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Local Government Bill. Those Amendments are expected to be received from another place to-morrow.
With regard to next week, I recognise that it will meet the general convenience of the House if I can give the business now, and I will do so; but of course the House will understand that it must be subject to confirmation on Thursday, and I hope it may be confirmed, if nothing untoward happens.
On Monday, we propose to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Estimates, and consider Class VII, Buildings, Votes 1, 9, 4 and 2 in Committee.
On Tuesday, we shall take the Committee stage of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill; the Report stage of Class VII Buildings Votes; Consideration of the Bridges Bill from another place; and, if received in time, the Gas Undertakings Bill.
On Wednesday, we hope to take the Motion for the Easter Adjournment.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. HENDERSON: Will the Prime Minister be able to state definitely at an early date when the House is to resume after the Easter Adjournment? The right hon. Gentleman must recognise how important it is that under existing circumstances hon. Members should have this information in order to enable them to make their arrangements.

The PRIME MINISTER: I will do my best. At present, I am still hoping that we shall not have to be called together before the 9th April.

Motion made, and Question put,
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, the Report of the Navy Supplementary Estimate, 1928, and of Ways and Means [14th March], may be considered this day before Eleven of the
clock, and that the Proceedings on the Report of Supply of the 14th March may be taken after Eleven of the clock and shall be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order

(Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 87.

Division No. 268.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fraser, Captain Ian
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Albery, Irving James
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Oakley, T.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Apsley, Lord
Gates, Percy
Penny, Frederick George


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Perring, Sir William George


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Goff, Sir Park
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Raine, Sir Walter


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ramsden, E.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Grotrian, H. Brent
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Berry, Sir George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bethel, A.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Robinson, Sir T, (Lanes., Stratford)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hammersley, S. S.
Ropner, Major L.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hanbury, C.
Ross, R. D.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harrison, G. J. C.
Salmon, Major L.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Sandon, Lord


Briggs, J. Harold
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hilton, Cecil
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl (Renfrew, W.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Smithers, Waldron


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Buchan, John
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Burman, J. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Storry-Deans, R.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Campbell, E. T.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Iveagh, Countess of
Templeton, W. P.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Thompson. Luke (Sunderland)


Christie, J. A.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Thomson, Sir Frederick


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Tinne, J. A.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cooper, A. Dull
Lamb, J. Q.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Couper, J. B.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kinston-on-Hull)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Loder, J. de V.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
MacAndrew. Major Charles Glen
Watts, Sir Thomas


Davies, Dr. Vernon
McLean, Major A.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macquisten, F. A.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Edge, Sir William
Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams. Herbert G. (Reading)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Malone, Major P. B.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Enqland, Colonel A.
Margesson, Captain D.
Womersley, W. J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wright, Brig-General W. D.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Fermoy, Lord
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive



Fielden, E. B.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Forrest, W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Major Sir William Cope.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Batey, Joseph
Clarke, A. B.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bellamy, A.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Ammon, Charles George
Benn, Wedgwood
Compton, Joseph


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Crawfurd, H. E.


Barnes, A.
Broad, F. A.
Dennison R.


Barr, J.
Cape, Thomas
Duncan, C.


Dunnico, H.
Kennedy, T.
Shinwell, E.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gillett, George M.
Lansbury, George
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Gosling, Harry
Longbottom, A. W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lowth, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Rennis (Penistone)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Snell, Harry


Grundy, T. W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
March, S.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Thurtle, Ernest


Hardie, George D.
Montague, Frederick
Townend, A. E.


Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Hayday, Arthur
Murnin, H.
Watson, w. M. (Dunfermline)


Hayes, John Henry
Naylor, T. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Owen, Major G.
Wellock, Wilfred


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Hirst, G. H.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Purcell, A. A.
Windsor, Walter


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J.



Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kelly, W. T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

COMPANIES ACT (1928) (APPOINTED DAY).

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Section one hundred and eighteen of the Companies Act, 1928.
The House will remember that last year this Parliament passed a very long Bill, of 118 Clauses, which involved very important and far-reaching amendments to the group of legislation which governs the registration, constitution and practice of joint stock companies. It may also be remembered that in that Bill no appointed day was laid down for the commencement of its operation, except that Section 92 of the Act, dealing with what is usually known as "share pushing," was put into operation at once; and recently, in order to facilitate readjustments of the capital of certain companies, Section 53 was put into operation by an Order in Council. During the Debates on the Bill of 1928, there was a distinct understanding that this very wide amending proposal would be followed immediately by a consolidating Act, and, therefore, no appointed day was fixed, because it was thought that the consolidating Bill would be got through in this Parliament, and that the reforms, where reforms were involved, would be put into operation as soon as the consolidating Act was passed.
The matter has since been referred to on one or two occasions in this House. The hon. and gallant Member for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) put down a question last December, and on that occasion the answer of the Prime Minister was such
as to lead Members of the House to suppose that the consolidating Bill would be passed through all its stages during the lifetime of the present Parliament. The consolidating Bill, however, which was introduced into the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor on the 21st February, does not, on our present information, seem to give us any real basis of hope that the reforms in the Companies Act, 1928, will come into operation in the immediate future. I would like to read to the House the statement made by the Lord Chancellor on the 21st February in the House of Lords. He said:
It may happen that there will ultimately appear to be necessary some amendment of the law as it is declared in the Bill when the Committee have finished with it. It will, in that event, become the duty of the Government to introduce some amending legislation in order to get rid of any difficulties that may appear. That can be done, of course"—
I hope the President of the Board of Trade will listen to this—
by the process of letting the present Bill drop or bringing in an amending Bill in some future Parliament and then a fresh Consolidation Bill which will embody both the Amendments and the results of the labours of the present Committee. It can, I think, be preferably done, unless the Amendments are numerous, by passing this Bill as it is ultimately amended by the Committee into law, but to postpone the date of its actual coming into operation until such Amendments as are necessary are cast in some ensuing Parliament.
4.0 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor, therefore, seemed to visualise one of two proceedings—that either the Consolidation Bill should be dropped and new amending legislation considered, or else amending legislation should now be introduced, and the date
of operation of the Bill postponed until some future date after such legislation had been passed. We very much hope that that is not to be the position, and it is for that reason we introduce this Bill. The Companies Act, 1928, by no means met the whole of the case on this side of the House as regards the law governing companies in general, but, at any rate, it did a great deal to remedy some of the abuses, more especially with regard to the issue of prospectuses, the method of publishing accounts and the giving of information to shareholders. While the Act by no means met us entirely, we are very anxious that it should be put into operation at the earliest opportunity. From the statement of the Lord Chancellor on 21st February in another place, however, there seems to be no real ground for hoping that a Bill will be passed in the present Parliament.
We have seen in the last few months a notorious example of how shareholders can be completely misled—to use no stronger word; I think I might say fraudulently misled—by the prospectus of a company, and, in regard to the issue of prospectuses, quite recently such important newspapers as the "Daily Mail" and the "Evening News" positively refused to publish a prospectus of a company, because, in their judgment, that prospectus was not giving reasonable, full and desirable information to the public who were being asked to invest in that company. Therefore, with cases of that kind still arising, it is perfectly plain that there is urgent need for the reforms which were included in the Act of 1928 to be put into operation, and not be left over until a completely uncertain date. After the lengthy Debate we had last year upon all the details of the Act, there is not any need, in moving this Bill under the ten minutes' Rule, to emphasise any further the need for operating the provisions of the Act immediately. While it would be more convenient to consolidate the Acts, if, as seems likely from the speech of the Lord Chancellor in another place, the passing of such a Consolidation Bill in this Parliament is doubtful, it may be considered that Section 118 of the Act of 1928 should be amended, so as to do away with the provision that the
appointed day can only be fixed by Order in Council, and that we should by this Bill fix the date as at 1st October, 1929.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I rise to oppose the Motion. As a member of the Committee which sat upstairs so long, I have only too good cause to remember the complexity of the Act passed in 1928. At the same time, this matter requires more consideration than, I think, has been given to it by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). I noticed that he addressed his remarks just now to the President of the Board of Trade, but I think I am right in saying that, by the custom of the House, it is not within the rights of the President of the Board of Trade to make a reply on this occasion, and it might have been a better plan if a question had been put down. I think that the hon. Member's doubts and fears would then have beer, cleared up. What are the facts? A Consolidation Bill is being put forward in another place, and the Lord Chancellor very properly made certain remarks in regard to the complexity of the Bill, and the necessity for caution before a Bill of no less than 380 Clauses, including, of course, the 1928 Act, should be made into an Act of Parliament He very properly said that it must be given great consideration, and the Bill is now before a Joint Committee of both Houses. With the difficulties that are inevitable with a Consolidation Bill which consolidates no fewer than four Acts of Parliament—1908, 1913, 1917 and 1928—it is essential that it should be given the closest possible consideration before it is put on the Statute Book and people have to abide by it.
One has got to remember that there are numbers of people who write text books, and that there are the directors and officials of all the companies in this country, all of whom will be bound by that great Consolidation Bill, and if there are any points in it that are not absolutely clear, it is going to lead to a great deal of trouble, and not do the good which is naturally the desire of everybody to see carried into effect. I, personally, hold the strongest views that the Act of 1928 is most essential, and I showed that very clearly by certain votes which I gave when the Measure
was upstairs. It is absolutely vital that more time should be given for consideration of this Bill, and I want, if I may, to clear up the hon. Gentleman's doubts and fears, and to say that, although I have no positive assertion, I have made as many inquiries as I can into the matter, and, as far as I am able to discover, there is no reason whatever why this Consolidation Bill should not be passed in the lifetime of the present Parliament. There is one other thing, of which I am quite confident, and that is that there is not smallest intention on the part of the

Government deliberately to postpone the bringing into operation of the 1928 Act which the hon. Member is so anxious to see brought about. I would ask him, in view of what I have tried to put forward, with great sincerity and earnestness, that he should withdraw his Bill, and not go to a Division.

Question put,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Section one hundred and eighteen of the Companies Act, 1928.

The House divided: Ayes, 88; Noes, 170.

Division No. 269.]
AYES.
[4.10 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Purcell, A. A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardle, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Ritson, J.


Baker, I. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Shinwell, E.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short. Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bellamy, A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Benn, Wedgwood
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bowerman. Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clarke, A. B.
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawrence, Susan
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Compton, Joseph
Longbottom, A. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cowan, O. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Day, Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Edge, Sir William
Montague, Frederick
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Windsor, Walter


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Owen, Major G.



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Buckingham, Sir H.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Albery, Irving James
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bullock, Captain M.
England, Colonel A.


Apsley, Lord
Burman, J. B.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Campbell, E. T.
Falte, Sir Bertram G.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fermoy, Lord


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Christie, J. A.
Fielden, E. B.


Berry, Sir George
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Bethel, A.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Forrest, W.


Betterton, Henry B.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Fraser, Captain Ian


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cooper, A. Duff
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cope, Major Sir William
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Couper, J. B.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gates, Percy


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Crooks, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Briggs, J. Harold
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Goff, Sir Park


Briscoe, Richard George
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grant, Sir J. A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hammersley, S. S.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxt'd, Henley)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Smithers, Waldron


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hilton, Cecil
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Storry-Deans, R.


Heare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Oakley, T.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Penny, Frederick George
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng Universities)
Perring, Sir William George
Thomson, Sir Frederick


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tinne, J. A.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Iveagh, Countess of
Raine, Sir Walter
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ramsden, E.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Warner Brigadier-General W. W.


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Warrender, Sir Victor


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Lamb, J. Q.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ropner, Major L.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Locker, Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Ross, R. D.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Williams, Herbert G (Reading)


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Salmon, Major I.
Womersley, W. J.


McLean, Major A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Sandon, Lord
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Savery, S. S.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Margesson, Captain D.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)



Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Shepperson, E. W.
Rear-Admiral Beamish and Mr. Roy Wilson.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)



First Resolution read a Second time.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolution reported from the Select Committee;
That, in the case of the Iveagh Bequest (Ken Wood) [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

REPORT [14TH MARCH].

Resolutions reported,

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1929.

"1. That 99,800 Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea Service, together with 500 for the Royal Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions, and at Royal Air Force Establishments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930.

2. That a sum, not exceeding £14,244,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and civilians employed on the Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930.

3. That a sum, not exceeding £1,907,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at home and abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants-in-Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930.

4. That a sum, not exceeding £3,873,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.

"5. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for Expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grant for Navy Services for the year."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, to leave out "99,800" and to insert instead thereof "99,700."
Our naval Debates for the last few years have been mainly preoccupied with questions of strategy, trade routes, cruisers and Geneva Conferences, and the equally important subject of the welfare and happiness and efficiency of the officers and men has perforce been somewhat neglected. I know the First
Lord has regretted that he could not devote more of his speeches to this important part of his charge, and I propose to give him the opportunity of supplying the omission. In his explanatory statement issued with the Navy Estimates there is little over half a page, out of some 12 or 13 pages, devoted to the personnel, and in the speech, which I regret I missed hearing, in which the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Estimates—I was away for the first time for 10 years—there was not very much about the officers and men. I want to raise one or two matters upon which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would like to give the House some enlightenment. I should like to know, when he has laid down his office, when he is sitting on the red benches and looks back over his five years as First Lord, what will he think the officers and men will remember him by. Will they be able to say, "This reform or that alteration was brought about in the régime of the right hon. Gentleman"? I do not know if they have a nickname for him. It is an excellent sign if they have. Will he be able to say, "I shall be remembered for all time by such and such a reform." So far, I feel that he will be remembered principally by things upon which perhaps we shall not be able to congratulate him very much. I do not want to refer to such matters as the Geneva Naval Conference or the Anglo-French Naval Pact. I shall remember him by other matters. It was he who by a stroke of the pen, for the sake of saving a very few pounds a year, destroyed the individuality of the two separate corps of the Royal Marine Artillery and the Royal Marine Light Infantry and amalgamated them into one body against the advice of every officer and, I believe, every man in the Royal Marines. He destroyed that priceless thing, tradition, which is easily destroyed but which takes many years to build up, and I do not think he has gained in efficiency. Of course, he has reduced the pay of the whole Navy.

Mr. SPEAKER: Vote A deals only with the number of men. The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot raise any other point than the actual number of men.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think Sir, you would rule me out of order in raising certain sugges-
tions which affect the number of men. I want to refer to a few matters affecting the welfare of the men.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how that affects the number of men employed in the Fleet.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Should I be able to raise that on the next Vote on the pay of the men?

Mr. SPEAKER: The questions the hon. and gallant Gentleman wished to raise were questions affecting pay, and that cannot be raised on this Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think you will rule me out of order about the amalgamation of the two corps of Royal Marines. That affects the numbers.

Mr. SPEAKER: On the question of the numbers of men the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be in order.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to appear to be altogether criticising the right hon. Gentleman. I believe there is one branch that is very efficient indeed very much affecting the number of men, and that is the training the men receive under what is known as vocational training, so that they can find employment ashore when they leave the Service. Perhaps I might ask what means are taken—I believe they are very good—after the men leave to find jobs for them. Obviously, if it is clear that there is machinery to find employment, there will be no reluctance to reduce the number from time to time. I think I shall bring myself in order by that suggestion. There are very good voluntary organisations, especially for the marines.

Mr. SPEAKER: Voluntary organisations cannot affect the number of men in the Navy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Should I be in order in saying if the First Lord can be certain there is a good chance of men who are discharged finding suitable employment he will not be so reluctant to discharge men and it might be possible to make certain economies? The labour market is very overcrowded, and he would naturally seek to make economies in every branch rather than cut down the number of men, and I quite sympathise with him. What is the
system? Do the associations who do this vital work receive any grant from Treasury funds?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question is certainly not in order on this Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am doubtful as to whether I should be in order in raising this question. The right hon. Gentleman promised me that there would be an investigation into whether it was desirable to make certain alterations in the King's Regulations and the Admiralty Instructions, especially with regard to certain matters of discipline.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must wait until those Votes come up for discussion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was not going to refer to the Naval Law Department or to the procedure of courts martial, but to matters of routine on board ship which affect the men. If I am not in order I will not pursue that. I will raise another matter altogether. I believe the Fleet might be very efficiently manned with a smaller number of men if more labour-saving appliances were introduced. I have here a photograph from the "Times" of 9th March of the most modern and costly battleship in the world, His Majesty's Ship "Nelson." She is, of course, fitted throughout with every kind of labour-saving appliance with regard to supplying ammunition and doing the work of the ships with certain exceptions. She has even a lift to go from the lower deck up to the upper parts of the ship. But certain work is still done by very antiquated methods. This photograph shows a very antiquated method of cleaning the decks known as holy-stoning. I do not want to make too much of this. I was made to holystone decks myself when I went to sea in a seagoing cruiser as a cadet, and a very good thing, too. We had a First Lieutenant who believed in making us do everything an able seaman can do, a splendid system that I approve of, and I hope the present cadets, when they go to sea, are made to do exactly the same duties throughout the day as the seaman, so as to understand his work. This holy-stoning of the decks consists of kneeling down and scrubbing the decks with holy-stones, and it is a very long, slow and laborious job. Here you
have these well-educated young men, as I have said, the cream of the population, holy-stoning the decks, and it is really heart-breaking work. I do not want to dwell on this too much, but I am sure that no efficient private firm would think of cleaning its woodwork in this way. Surely, there must be some mechanical way of cleaning decks without this kind of manual labour and waste of time. This work was done in Nelson's day, but there is no reason why, because it was done then that it, like other bad customs, should remain in operation at the present time. I am all for the good traditions, but not for the bad traditions, and this is one of the bad traditions which have survived.
I spoke just now of the amalgamation of the two corps of Royal Marines. I do not know whether it has really resulted in much saving in regard to the number of men. I do not think that it has. It has destroyed a certain amount of tradition and struck a very bitter blow at the pride of those two gallant bodies of men. One result has been, unfortunately, that it has left a great many senior Marine officers without any suitable billets. I understand that of the Marine Lieutenant-Generals only one is employed as an Adjutant-General. I have the numbers here, and I am sorry to see that only one is now fully employed. I should like to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman which was made many years ago by the late Admiral Lord Fisher. Many of his proposals were very good, and some were not so good. Some of his proposals were carried out, and some were not. This is, I think, an admirable proposal and would prove to be a very useful way of employing the senior Marine officers They might be employed as commanding officers of coast defence areas at Malta, Gibraltar, and our own coast defences. The Marine officer during his training learns a great deal about ships, and he would avoid mistakes such as the mistake which happened in the late War, when a gallant soldier at Dover, I believe, reported three of our trawlers which were coming down the Channel as three German battle cruisers, and the whole Fleet went to sea. There was a tremendous flutter at the Admiralty until the mistake was found out. We should not have such a mistake as was made by a gallant soldier, who, when
the "Hampshire" was mined at sea with Field-Marshal Lord Kitchener on board, reported that a battle cruiser was in distress. As the "Hampshire" was an armoured cruiser and he did not report that there was an explosion or that she was sinking, the people of Scapa Flow did not know what he was driving at, asked for further information and there was delay in sending help. I do not say that many more might have been saved, but that kind of mistake could not occur if you had a Marine officer in command of the coast defences.

Captain FANSHAWE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that after the first explosion—there were two explosions when the "Hampshire" was sunk—the ship was actually down under water in one quarter of an hour? How then does the argument apply about sending help or no help? I think that was rather an unfortunate thing to say regarding this disaster.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am not sure that help might not have been sent if the full information had been given more quickly. You can send fast craft a long way in a quarter of an hour. I was careful to say that that might not have led to a greater saving of life, but it was one of those unfortunate things that are likely to happen when you have soldiers who are not used to sending naval signals. If you have a marine officer, he is not so likely to make mistakes. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Captain Fanshawe) would be glad to see the senior marine officers who had done very good service given suitable employment. I again make the proposal to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that the War Office would oppose it, but surely the right hon. Gentleman is strong enough to overcome such an objection.
I think that a mistake is being made at the present time by allowing the entry of too many men into the Navy, both officers and men. There are bound to be considerable reductions in the future. The right hon. Gentleman himself has proposed that the size of ships should be reduced by agreement. If you have smaller ships, you require fewer men. That is obvious. I think it is quite likely that the only three Powers that desire to build battleships may agree to build no
more when the present battleships become obsolete. This is not an impossible arrangement between the only three naval Powers—ourselves, the Japanese, and the Americans—who are likely to want to build battleships. Then you would have a great redundance of officers and men. No one would wish that these officers and men should not have their futures assured. In any case, they must be properly looked after and compensated if they are discharged, and properly pensioned. The suggestion that any party, least of all the Labour party, would wish to do otherwise is grotesque.
The thing to do, until you are quite certain of future requirements, is to slow down your recruiting both of officers and men. I find that this has not been the case. There has been a slight reduction in the number of boys who have entered, but the number of cadets who have entered remains much the same. I have an answer here that the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me, in which I find that in the last four years between 150 and 158 cadets have been entered every year at Dartmouth, and that, in addition, there have been between 40 and 80 by direct entry. It is true that there were only 48 in 1928 by direct entry, but there were 82 in 1927, and 86 in 1926. If you add together the direct entry cadets and the Royal Naval College cadets at Dartmouth, the total numbers are practically the same as when the hon. and gallant Gentleman and myself went into the "Britannia"—about 180 a year—and when we had a far greater Fleet and a far greater naval menace. It is not fair to enter these men in such numbers if there is not an assured career and employment for them in the years that lie ahead. Incidentally, I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he could inform me from what schools they came, and he said that there would be too much labour and expenditure of time involved in giving an answer. Let me tell him that he was misinformed by his staff, because I saw the list at the Admiralty some years ago. Very little time and labour would be involved in getting that information. Perhaps someone does not want to give him this information which is kept tabulated.
The policy to-day with regard to the numbers of officers and men should be to
rely as much as possible upon the splendid reserves that we have in the mercantile marine. We often say that a great part of our naval strength is due to the fact that we are still the predominant maritime Power. The men and officers who man our merchant ships are our real reserves. The right hon. Gentleman may say, "Oh, well, naval warfare is so complicated and modern warships are so complex, that you cannot rely sufficiently on the officers and men who are in the naval reserve." If he says that, it is nonsense. Neither he nor I know what a future war may be like, but there is one thing that we can be certain of, and that is that it will be nothing like the last war. In the last war, the officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve who came from the mercantile marine, especially from the fishing fleets, were admirable. The trawler men who performed anti-submarine and mine-sweeping work were admirable in every way. In addition to that, we had the amateur sailors—the yachtsmen and people of that kind—who joined the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and became a very valuable adjunct to the Fleet. You should look there for your increase of men, and steps should be taken to foster and to increase the efficiency of the Royal Naval Reserve. Then the right hon. Gentleman would have every right to cut down the number of officers and men by slowing; down recruiting and without causing any injustice at all to the serving personnel. It is on these lines that savings can be made.
Another way in which savings could be made would be by promoting more suitable petty officers and men under the Mate scheme. You would get a trained lieutenant in a fewer number of years at less cost to the State than the expense of entering boys through Dartmouth and training them as midshipmen and sublieutenants and so on. You could get a saving in numbers if you took more care of the health of the men, particularly with regard to tuberculosis. I am sure that a saving in personnel could be made there. I do not want to go into this matter at length, but it is very sad indeed that there should be numbers of men invalided because of tuberculosis. There must be something wrong with the ventilation or living conditions on board ship. The numbers are very great. It is most unfortunate that, when these men who have been chosen after careful medical
examination, as I have said, from the cream of the population, are invalided, it should be said that their disability is not due to naval service. I think that the onus should be placed on the Admiralty to prove that the disability is not due to naval service and not upon the men to prove that it is due to naval service. There is great heart burning in naval circles and constituencies, where there are a great number of naval men's families, at the way in which these men have been treated. You take boys perfectly fit and healthy, and, after a few years, they go down with this terrible disease, and you say that it is not attributable to naval service unless the boy can prove that it is.
There is another matter which affects the numbers to some extent. It relates to the submarine service. This used to be far more unhealthy than it is now, and the wastage in the submarine service used to be worse than it is at the present time. The improved conditions, no doubt, are due to the larger submarines and the fact that the service is altogether better. When submarines were started, all men were volunteers, and you had no lack of volunteers. The very fact that it was supposed to be a dangerous service made men rather proud of it, and it had a good effect on moral and discipline. Nowadays, I am afraid, every man entering the Service is made to sign a declaration that he is willing to serve in submarines. Why has the old voluntary system for submarines been abandoned? What is the object? By that you destroy a certain amount of pride.

Mr. SPEAKER: How does the hon. and gallant Member relate this argument to the number of recruits?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It might affect the number of men offering if they knew that they had to volunteer for submarines. The right hon. Gentleman in speaking of the number of personnel mentioned that the number of Naval members of the Board of Admiralty was less. I was sorry to hear that. I do not like to see such a reduction. He was good enough to assure me that the reductions at the Admiralty would not be at the expense of the Naval side of the staff.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): That reductions would not be made which would affect the efficiency of the staff.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I understand that the Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff is now not on the Board. That reduces the Naval element, but strengthens the civilian element. I understand that he is not going to leave the Admiralty, but that he is going to remain in an advisory capacity. If so, there is no reduction in numbers. May I ask if any reduction in the number of officers has been brought about by the reactionary step in suppressing the Trade Division of the Admiralty? I have referred to our wonderful reserves in the Mercantile Marine. The Trade Division of the Admiralty was the liaison between the Navy and the Mercantile Marine. It was abolished in a wave of economy in 1909, but it had to be re-established in 1913. I have spoken to very distinguished officers who served in the Trade Division, who said that when they came back to it after four years it was difficult to pick up the threads. I understand that the Trade Division has been absorbed partly in the Intelligence Division and partly in the Plans Division. I look upon it as a most important Division. We have heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) about trade routes and the defence of trade routes. One of the weaknesses which was discovered in the War was the lack of knowledge of the Mercantile Marine and its methods by the Royal Navy. There was a divorcement between the two services, and we suffered from lack of knowledge of the trade routes. The Trade Division existed to put that sort of thing right, and it was a retrograde step to abolish it.
I should like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it would make much difference to the numbers of officers and men carried if the amount of leave that is given to the officers and men when they have served in commands abroad, was increased. To-day, a man serves an enormous length of time abroad; that is inevitable owing to the number of ships on foreign stations. Life in the Navy now is more strenuous than it used to be, and a greater proportion of the officers and
men are married, which is a good thing. When they come back after three years' commission abroad they are entitled to a fortnight's leave for each year served abroad. I think there ought to be a longer period allowed. With the present number of officers and men, could the amount of foreign service leave be increased?
I believe that a saving in the number of men could be brought about by having fewer men but securing greater efficiency. We must attract to the Service the very best type of men, physically and mentally. In order to do so, we must do what the Admiralty have, in theory, been attempting to do ever since the régime of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1911, namely, to provide an avenue of promotion from the lower deck to the quarter-deck and the higher command. When the late Lord Long was First Lord he introduced a revised scheme for promotion from the lower deck, and he said something like this, that there was now a clear avenue, that every sailor boy would have an admiral's flag in his kitbag, and that it would be possible for a man of ability and efficiency to rise from the lower deck to any rank in the Service. Let us see how this scheme has worked out in practice. I am going to accuse the present First Lord of the Admiralty of deliberately blocking the channel. I do not refer so much to his narrowing of the channel but to his blocking one end almost completely. Therefore, I accuse him. It is false economy, because if you discourage the best young men from entering the Service as seamen, you must have more of the inefficient sort.
A scheme was introduced in 1913 under the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty. He did some good things, and this was one of them; but he did some good things in the wrong way. From 1913 to 1918 some 371 petty officers and young warrant officers were commissioned as mates. This was one of the right things which was done in the wrong way. A mistake was made in reviving the old title of "mate" to apply to these officers. Formerly, the title of "mate" was applied to navigating officers pure and simple. The late Captain James Cook entered as a mate, although he was a different sort
of mate than was referred to by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha). By reviving the old title of "mate" and earmarking these promoted men as mates, it meant differentiating them from the other officers. In the Army I understand that that is not the case. The ranker officer becomes an officer, and there is no sign in his name or in anything else to distinguish him from the officers who came from Sandhurst and Woolwich. In the Navy, we have done quite differently. We have sent these men to the wardroom straight away—

Mr. SPEAKER: This has nothing to do with the Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With respect, I would point out that if we attract the best type of men into the Navy, we can cut down the personnel to a certain extent, whereas if we have a greater number of men not so efficient, we cannot cut down the numbers. Therefore, we could reduce the number of officers entering in the beginning, by promoting suitable men from the lower deck. During the six years 1913–1918, 371 mates were promoted and 161 mates, E, were promoted, making a total of 532 in the six years up to the Armistice. In the six years 1919–2924, only 32 mates and 39 mates, E, were promoted, a total of 71. In the four years 1925–1928, only 29 were promoted mates, so the channel has been narrowed very much. It has also been blocked at the other end. Of the 200 mates who were promoted between 1913–1915, only two have been promoted to the rank of commander. These gentlemen went through four years of the War as commissioned officers.

Mr. SPEAKER: Promotions will make no difference in the numbers. There must be the same number, from whatever source they are promoted.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There would be this difference, that if they had not been promoted they would have retired earlier at the age of 40, whereas as mates they are able to remain longer. That would make a difference in the numbers.

Mr. SPEAKER: It would not make any difference in the total number.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With very great respect, I believe it would. One of my complaints against the right hon. Gentleman is that he has not allowed for these promotions by reducing the number of officers, ex-cadets. He is still introducing the same number of cadets, and there is a superabundance of officers. During the same period that I have quoted, 125 ex-cadets passed through the same zone and have been promoted, compared with only two mates who have been promoted as commanders. I do not think that anyone can defend such meagre promotion for the men from the lower deck. None of the latter men have yet reached Flag rank. There is no captain on the active list to-day who came from the lower deck, but there are two commanders. There was one captain, the late Captain Lyne, but he retired many years ago. That was not the case in the earlier period. The hon. Member for Devonport said that the Navy had never been able to show careers like that of the late Field-Marshal Sir William Roberston in the Army.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I did not say that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the hon. Member will look in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find that he made that statement. He is quite wrong. We have had a great many most distinguished officers who have been promoted from the lower deck. I have referred to Captain James Cook. It is true that he was a master's mate, but he entered into a branch of the Service the members of which were not usually promoted to high rank. He became one of the greatest of navigators. Then, there was Sir Christopher Myngs, an Admiral who died fighting in his own battleship, and Sir Edward Spragge.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What date?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In the Napoleonic Wars.

Mr. SPEAKER: This argument is quite irrelevant to the Vote.

5.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I thought that I should have been in order in comparing the slow promotion of these gentlemen from the lower deck to-day with the more rapid promotion of the
men from the lower deck in an earlier age in the Navy, but I do not wish to pursue the subject. However, I have made my point, that this channel of promotion has been blocked. One of the, best avenues of promotion has been specialisation, and in this regard, despite the promises of the right hon. Gentleman, the chance of specialising has not been given to any of these gentlemen, except in two cases. An Admiralty Fleet Order was issued, No. 1095, in 1926, in which it said that ex-mates would be eligible to specialise under the same conditions as ex-cadets. In 1928 the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, in an answer in this House, said that only two ex-mates had been selected for specialisation. As a consequence of this, we have a redundancy of officers on shore jobs. These mates have not had a fair crack of the whip at all; and the Admiralty have not served the best interests of the Navy by their action in this matter. The Navy belongs to the whole nation and not to any one class. The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, on the 14th March, speaking with the cynicism of the First Lord but without his wit, said that this was due to the fact that there was a blockade in promotion.
These ex-mates have not had their fair proportion of promotions. These 200 gentlemen, if they had been promoted in the same proportion as ex-cadets, would have had 30 or 40 promotions to commander given them. Only two have been promoted, and I say that the whole question should be inquired into. The hon. Member for Devonport has suggested a committee of inquiry. I suggest that such a committee should inquire into the whole system of promotions from the lower deck to commissioned rank, and into the position of the 59 or 60 of the former ex-mates of the first 200 specially chosen from the whole Navy, who still remain on the active list. There was another naval officer—perhaps the hon. Member for Devonport would like to know—who came from humble origin: Sir Francis Drake. One of his principles, which would solve this and many other customs in the Navy was this. He said: "Let the gentlemen haul with the mariners, and mariners with the gentlemen; all shall be of one company." I commend the words of that great Elizabethan Admiral to the First Lord.

Mr. KELLY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I desire to raise one or two points of interest, which I hope either the First Lord or the Financial Secretary will deal with. In the White Paper there is a reference to a reduction in the number of men by 1,000, and a statement that there is expectation of a further reduction of 1,000. This would make a reduction of 3,000 on the numbers borne on the books on the 1st April, 1928. May I ask how this reduction is being arrived at? Is it because of any change in ships, or because of a better understanding with other nations, or is it arrived at by a rule of thumb method? The question of adequate provisions to prevent the spread of tuberculosis amongst the men is important, as this is having a great effect upon those who desire to join the Navy. In the White Paper there is a reference to the number of men who are loaned to the Dominions and foreign Governments. Is this responsible for the reduction to which I have referred? If so, it can hardly be in keeping with the explanatory statement because the Admiralty do not, I think, consider that these men are off the active list even if they are off the pay roll, as far as the Admiralty is concerned.
In Vote A there is a reference to the total naval and marine officers and men of the Royal Marine Police Force. Is it the intention to increase the numbers of the Royal Marine Police Force in view of the extra duties which, I am told, are to be imposed upon them in taking the place of Metropolitan constables who have had charge of police duties at the various dockyards? Does this alteration in numbers mean an alteration in the number of engineer officers? Is there a decrease in their number, or is there to be an increase in order to meet the mechanical requirements of the present time? This applies also to the case of the boys. We have a footnote to the effect that 136 boy shipwrights are under training in the dockyards. Are they in training for Fleet service or for work in the dockyards? Then the number of naval cadets at Dartmouth College is 550. Is this in expectation of an increase in the number of officers in the future? While a considerable decrease is spoken of in certain sections
there is an increase in the number of petty officers and seamen. I really cannot understand, in view of the many professions that there is a better understanding throughout the world, why we should require to place on the shoulders of the taxpayers of this country the responsibility for maintaining such a huge force as we are providing for in these Estimates.

Commander SOUTHBY: I rise to answer one or two of the points which have been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I am opposed to the Amendment he has proposed but I should like to thank him for his kindly references to myself at the beginning of his speech. He has covered an immense amount of naval territory; in fact, he have roamed from holystones to marine generals, but I think he might have taken the House a little more into his confidence with regard to the question of personnel, with which he was supposed to be dealing. As a naval officer he knows that the personnel of ships is worked out on the fighting and working necessities of the ship itself. It is impossible to duplicate duties beyond a certain point. The hon. and gallant Member referred to some proposals which were made by the late Lord Fisher, but he will agree that many of the proposals which the late Admiral Fisher made were not considered altogether good or necessary. I believe Lord Fisher once said that he would like to do away with paymasters, doctors, and chaplains in the Navy, and institute one rank, that of a medical missionary with a knowledge of accounts. I do not suppose the hon. and gallant Member desires to return to that position. I am glad the hon. and gallant Member remembers his holystoning days, but it does not always mean a saving in personnel to introduce mechanical means Other troubles come in with them. Paint-spraying, as against painting by ordinary manual labour, is an instance. In the new ships with their water-tight sub-divisions, and immense size we have to some extent done away with the boatswain's mate, and, if I understand the hon. and gallant Member, he is proposing to carry this still further, and introduce a kind of automatic boatswain as well as a mechanical boatswain's mate.
He has referred to the fact that the same number of cadets are now being
trained as in the days when he and I went to the "Britannia." May I remind him that sometime, just before the War, when our ships were being re-fitted he and I possibly suffered in the same way from the fact that we had to go temporarily to other ships in the Fleet in order to make good the shortage of watchkeeping officers, and therefore the ships refitting did not have the complement of officers which was required in order to make their refit really efficient. It is important that sufficient officers are being sent into naval service in order that the duties are properly carried out without inflicting any hardship. The hon. and gallant Member also referred to the personal feeling for the present First Lord of the Admiralty on the part of the men and officers of the Royal Navy. I think I voice the views of the House of Commons and also of the Navy when I say that they will remember him as a First Lord in whom they could always have implicit trust to do everything he could not only for the officers but for the men of the lower deck. Then with regard to the question of the merchant seamen to whom the hon. and gallant Member referred. It would be very bad policy to rely on the men from the mercantile marine for the manning of ships in His Majesty's Navy. It requires continuous study of modern conditions to make an efficient seaman in the Fleet and, much more important, the proper place for a merchant seaman is in a merchant ship. That is particularly necessary during war. The last war showed us how necessary it was to have an efficient mercantile marine, and if you are going to take this personnel away from their proper duties and put them into the Fleet you are going to live in a fool's paradise if you should ever go to war. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred to coast watching in the Orkneys and Shetlands during the War. I am not sure that I understood him aright, but in the same breath almost he was trying to find new jobs for marine generals. I do not know whether his suggestion is that surplus marine generals should be given the job of coast watching. I do not think such a scheme could possibly be successful. As a matter of fact, at Scapa during the War, a large number of the garrison were marines, at any rate at the beginning.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. When I spoke of senior marine officers, such as colonels and generals, I had in mind the position of commanding officer at places like Gibraltar and Malta, to which army generals are now appointed.

Commander SOUTHBY: I am sure that I would not misrepresent the hon. and gallant Member. When I interrupted him in his speech I rose to call attention to the fact that probably by a slip of the tongue he rather anticipated an event which we hope is very far distant, namely, the death of Sir William Robertson. He alluded to Sir William Robertson as "the late." I understand that Sir William Robertson is extremely alive, and I am very glad to be able to say so. I beg to oppose the Amendment.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I am sure that every hon. Member must be conscious of the difficulty in raising any question as to the number of men said to be desirable for the Fleet. However, there was a Report issued a few years ago, not by partisans or by Members who were on the opposite side to that of the Government, but by men well known in public life and in the shipping world. I refer to the Geddes Committee. I would remind the House of the composition of that Committee. Sir Eric Geddes presided over the Committee, and he had as his colleagues Lord Inchcape, Lord Faringdon, Sir Joseph Maclay, and Sir Guy Granet. These well known public men spent much time in analysing different Departments of State. One Department which they analysed closely was the Admiralty, and they dealt with the question of the number of men required at that time for the Fleet. In their Report, which was presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer seven years ago, they said:
We have considered what would be a reasonable allowance for the active personnel of the Navy in all the circumstances existing to-day, and we make the following suggestions.
They went into the reasons why they had come to the final total figure, which is to be found on page 16 of their Report. They came to the conclusion that the total number of men required seven years ago was 88,400. Yet this afternoon
the Admiralty ask the House to sanction a total personnel of 99,800. It is not for me or for any hon. Member on such technical questions as the number of officers and men required to man effectively the present fighting strength of the Navy, to question the First Lord and his officers, but we are fortified in the recommendations of the Geddes Committee, especially when we read in the Report of seven years ago that the Committee "took no account of other circumstances which might well lead the First Lord of the Admiralty to reduce the number still further." In their final recommendation the Geddes Committee used these words:
In these recommendations no account is taken of large savings which might result from the proposals arising out of the Washington Conference, such as the discontinuance of the construction of the four capital ships.
The Committee also stated:
We have based our proportionate estimate of the manning of groups II and III on the 1914 standard. We think that the Admiralty would be able, on investigation, to adopt in these groups a less immediate state of readiness, now that there is no German threat to fear, with reduction in personnel.
It is true that the Admiralty of that time torpedoed the recommendations of the Geddes Committee of 1921. If one has regard to the international situation to-day, in comparison with the situation that existed seven years ago, I do not think there is any justification for the Admiralty demanding 10,000 more men than the Geddes Committee thought necessary. For that reason, and not because of any technical knowledge of the situation, I suggest that regard should be had to the report of this impartial committee which was composed of able and experienced men who were not tainted with any desire to criticise unduly or unfairly His Majesty's Government of that time. The Committee said that in their judgment the numbers required seven years ago were 10,000 less than those that the Admiralty are asking for this afternoon. If the Amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall fall back on the recommendations of the Geddes Committee as a very weighty justification for joining issue with the policy of the First Lord.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: It is not easy to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the
Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), because he was so often pulled up on the different subjects he mentioned, and I am afraid that in replying to him I may find myself in the same position. With much that he said I am naturally in agreement. He knows the Navy and I am a humble, student of it. I would like, with him, to congratulate the First Lord on the statement which he made to the House, and I am sure I can express on behalf of the dockyards constituencies the sincere regret which they will feel when the First Lord leaves his post; and if, as has been suggested, my right hon. Friend finds himself on the red benches, I hope that he will still represent the Navy. Then we shall not lose him, although he may be gone from this House.
A great writer once said that the Royal Navy is really the man at the wheel of the State. Although its importance is not, perhaps, recognised as it ought to be, that is what the Navy is and that is what the First Lord represents—the man at the wheel of the State. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull made what, I think, was one incorrect statement, when he said that the Government had reduced the pay of the whole Navy. It is true that from a certain date every man entering the Navy has smaller pay, but that does not apply to the whole Navy, and there are now in the Navy hundreds of thousands of men who are receiving the old rate of pay. The statement of the hon. and gallant Member on this subject, like most general statements, was rash, but as it may be made use of, and as my hon. Friend's speeches are heard in larger spheres than in this House—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I did not hear the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), but this is a Vote for the numbers of men required, and not for their pay.

Sir B. FALLE: That is so, but the numbers of men and the question of their pay must bear a very intimate relation to each other. However, I shall not pursue the subject. My hon. and gallant Friend thought it would be a good thing to reduce the number of men in the Fleet. Naturally I do not agree with him. I repudiate also the suggestion that if we reduced the number we could possibly
enlist a better type of man. I think that we have and that at the moment we are enlisting a very fine type of man. I see great numbers of them, and I believe that from the physical and mental standpoint it would be difficult to obtain a finer body of men anywhere. The number that we enlist in my humble opinion, instead of being too large is too small.
Hon. Members opposite have referred to tuberculosis in the Service and they ask what the First Lord had done for the Service. My right hon. Friend has tackled the question of tuberculosis in the Navy and he deserves the thanks of every man who takes an interest in that great Service. A very short time ago the men who were invalided from the Navy for tuberculosis, attributable to or aggravated by service, were 3 per cent. only. In the last return under the new rules formulated by him the percentage is over 60 per cent. I hope that progress will continue, and that if possible even more care may be taken so that these men are properly looked after. Already there has been this enormous stride in advance; it is something more than a step, it is a stride. When you couple that with the new announcement about the men of the Royal Fleet Reserve, you get a very satisfactory account of the First Lord's work during the last phase of his term of office.
One other point to which I would refer is the question of the mates. I agree with every word that has been said on the subject by the hon. and gallant Member opposite. It is not necessary to reinforce what he said, but I hope that his words will weigh with the Admiralty in the future, when, as I anticipate, the present occupants of the Front bench are again returned with a majority. If I were a betting man I would give any man a large bet on that point. [Interruption.] I hope that in the future we shall have the same First Lord and the same Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. If we do, then I believe we shall progress, in relation to all these matters which I have mentioned, faster than any other Government could hope to do.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: I wish to put some questions in regard to the particular branch of the naval service in which I am most closely interested. I have been in communication with the right hon. Gentleman and the Parlia-
mentary Secretary and I want to thank them both for their courtesy, and for the explicit answers which I have received from them. I would only remind the Parliamentary Secretary that I have a letter here dated 24th January in relation to the recruitment of engineering mechanics and artificer apprentices and that he has not yet carried out his promise to write to me again on the subject. Two months have passed since I received that communication, and I trust he will let me have his further reply as speedily as possible. As I say, I am particularly interested in the engineering branch of the Navy, and before putting some questions about artificers and apprentice artificers I would like to read to the House the opinion of Sir Alan Anderson on this branch of the Navy, expressed in his presidential address to the marine engineers:
The marine engineer is an indispensable expert and, as mechanical knowledge improves, he grows in importance. If the pay and position of the marine engineer do not keep pace with the marine engine, the right men are not tempted to serve, and, not only the engine suffers but also the sea transport upon which all of us depend.
He also said:
At the moment there are seven or eight different systems in force for obtaining naval engineer officers some of them very expensive, others badly conceived giving rise to the remark of Admiral Sir Reginald Bacon in his 'Naval Scrap Book,' that engineering was a great stumbling block to those who had no mind for mechanical details.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will look into this matter of the "seven or eight different systems in force for obtaining naval engineer officers." I should be pleased to have some statement from him as to what those systems are. A distinguished person said the other day that a ship was useless without an engine, and, I presume, that an engine is not much use without an engineer. I am obliged to the First Lord for expressing the opinion in his speech that the artificer apprentices had done excellent work in adverse circumstances. I am also thankful for the better accommodation which the right hon. Gentleman has been providing for them at Chatham. I appreciate what has been done in this respect, and I trust that it will give satisfaction, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman: Why should the provision of this better accommoda-
tion be accompanied by annoying regulations which have the effect of discouraging young men from entering the Service? I remember writing on previous occasions about what seemed to be quite unnecessary alterations in relation to uniforms. I find now that there has been a reduction of status and that these men enter as first-class petty officers, instead of as acting chief petty officers. What is the necessity for altering titles in this way? Surely it is not necessary that men should suddenly have their status reduced by some such alteration in title which only serves to create dissatisfaction.
I should also like to know how many apprentices have been promoted. I ask this question with a view to getting new entrants to join the Service, and to take an active interest in the engineering branch. It would be interesting to know how many of them have been promoted to the rank of Midshipman E since that rank was instituted, and how many can be promoted every year. I am under the impression that the promotions are so few that engineers are disheartened about their chances of advancement. If these young apprentices have greater scope in the matter of promotion the Admiralty will get a better type of youngster—those who are willing to dedicate their whole lives to the Service. In relation to this Vote I find that there is an increase of 130 executive officers and 396 seamen. I am not saying that these additional numbers are not needed but, on the other hand, there appears to be a reduction of 65 engineer officers, seven warrant engineers, 60 engine room artificers and 265 stokers. It seems remarkable that we should have an increase in the number of executive officers and seamen, while the engineering department is being rigorously cut down. I do not object to a reduction if it is found to be necessary, but the Admiralty have recently been advertising for qualified engineers. I would like to know if there is any difficulty at the moment, even apart from this reduction, in getting the complement for the ships which are commissioned from time to time.
I recently raised some questions in regard to service at home in connection with the point about the shortage of engineer artificers. These men complain
that they are being sent abroad for very long periods. I should like to know if I am right in saying that a man is regarded as being on home service who may be with the Atlantic Fleet all the time. That is a matter into which some inquiry ought to be made. I gather that there are 27 commissioned engineers going on pension, which is more than last year, but that seven lets than last year are going to be borne on the Vote. Does this mean that 20 warrant engineers are going to be raised to the rank of commissioned engineer and that 20 artificers are going to be raised to the rank of warrant engineers? I hope I am right in my deduction, and, if that is so, I certainly compliment the right hon. Gentleman, because I feel that some encouragement is required in this branch of the Navy. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will look into these points as early as possible, and that I may have an answer soon to the letter which I have mentioned.

Mr. WILLIAM BENNETT: It is with very considerable trepidation that one ventures to intervene in a Debate on the Navy when there are so many specialists present. But I should like to support this Amendment and in doing so I would draw attention particularly to the numbers given under the heading of "Scientific Services." Under this heading we find this year there are 31 of all ranks as against 28 last year I suggest that this number—which shows an increase of three men on the scientific side of the Navy—is either 31 too many, or else is quite ridiculously inadequate. I understand on the best authority that the next war will not be fought either by technically perfect cruisers and battleships or by highly developed mechanised armies but that it will be largely a matter of poison gas or even disease germs. May I support that statement by a quotation?
A study of Diseases—of Pestilences methodically prepared and deliberately launched upon man and beast—is certainly being pursued in the laboratories of more than one country. Blight to destroy crops. Anthrax to slay horses and cattle. Plague to poison not armies only, but whole districts.
Is that correct or not? It is on very good authority because the name attached to it is that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir B. FALLE: I was not questioning the hon. Member's statement. I was only thinking what a cheerful statement it was.

Mr. BENNETT: I think the hon. Member smiled, but it does not seem to me to be a matter for smiling. I can visualise new and magnificent fleets of cruisers rushing across the seas, working splendidly in every mechanical detail, but with every man on board dead. The excuse for the Navy is the defence of this country, but there is no defence in the best Navy in the world against such methods as those indicated in the quotation which I have just given. There does not seem to be any reason why submarines should not launch clouds of poison gas against coast towns, and no perfection in your Navy can prevent it. The only people who can meet these methods are the scientists themselves. Enormous improvements have been made in the weapons of war. We have gone far since the days of the stone-axe or the bow and arrow—although the Army still provides some men with spurs, and I know of a case of one who during the War sat at a clerk's desk equipped with spurs. The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) referred to a fool's paradise, and it seems to me that we are living in a fool's paradise. I wish we could have a discussion on all these Services together. As a new Member I have been amazed at the perfect calm with which these Estimates are discussed in the House. I feel very much alarmed about it. In regard to this provision of 31 men in the scientific branch of the Service, I would inquire if we have abandoned the idea of poison gas and disease germs? I have seen it reported in the Press that the Germans say that they are not going to use poison gas and are prepared to abandon it altogether. Does this small number in this Department mean that we are also prepared to do so?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think the hon. Member is labouring under some misapprehension. These 31 men to whom he is referring with so much alarm are only naval officers who are attached to the scientific establishment, and if he looks at Vote 6, I hope he will be reassured on that point.

Mr. BENNETT: I presume there are a great many more there.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The hon. Member said we were not giving sufficient attention to scientific research, but if he looks at Vote 6, I hope he will be reassured on that point.

Mr. BENNETT: I am reassured that we have a very great deal more than the numbers that are given here, and that is all the more reason why I should support the Amendment to reduce the Vote. If, on the other hand, they are engaged in discovering antidotes to these poisons and diseases, then indeed it is a magnificent occupation, but I understood that the Navy was a fighting Service, and that its object was either to defend this country or to terrify our enemies into not going to war with us at all. If it is true that these men are engaged in the humanitarian task of discovering whether there is some antidote against the civilian population of this country being brought to a ghastly and miserable end in the next war, one could not possibly object to that.
If this weapon is to be done away with and plague germs and poison gas are not to be used, then we are on the horns of this dilemma, that if it is possible to disarm in relation to poison gas, it is certainly possible to disarm in regard to battleships, submarines, or tanks; and I maintain that unless you are prepared to come to a complete agreement, you cannot do away with poison gas or disease germs. Once any weapon of destruction is invented or discovered by man, nothing on earth, except abolishing war altogether, can prevent its use up to the hilt when a nation is convinced that it is fighting in its own defence, and if hon. Members think the warrior of the future is going to be either an Admiralty officer with his gold lace or a great soldier with his sword, they are mistaken. The future remains with the chemist and the poisoner, probably in an overall or a black suit, and this situation is necessarily brought about by the crime committed by the present Government when in 1926 they refused to accept arbitration treaties with Switzerland and Holland.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: The reduction that has been used seems to be quite unreal. We have not been informed by those responsible for moving it in what
respect the reduction would take place. There was no suggestion made that our ships were overmanned and that a reduction should be made in the complements of these vessels. It is simply one of those vague attacks which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is so competent to make and never brings home. I cannot help thinking that in making that speech he was making it with some hope that one day he may be the First Lord of the Admiralty, and all I have to say is, God save the Admiralty in those circumstances! He attacks the dockyards, and nothing ever satisfies him, and the only merit of those attacks is that for the moment he is, I suppose, on half pay in His Majesty's Navy.
I want to know a little more about this Vote for a reduction in the number of men, whether it is suggested that one ship, for instance, should be taken out of commission, and, if so, which ship. Nothing of the kind has been told us, and, as far as I can see, if this reduction is to be carried to a Division, the hon. Members opposite might just as well vote against the whole of the Navy Vote. They did it on one occasion, and they might just as well do it again. The hon. Member for South Battersea (Mr. W. Bennett) says he does not understand our procedure and wonders why his stupid predecessors have not improved it long ago. If he is ever returned to this House again, he may grow wiser as he gets more experience. Fancy the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force all being dealt with as one subject, and nobody understanding on which subject he was speaking! The hon. Member referred to scientific services, and if he really thinks the Admiralty is concerned with microbes and with poison gas, I wish he would refer me to the page in the Estimates which deals with them. I am bound to say that I am ignorant of it, but that is far from saying, of course, that they are not there.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty tried to put the hon. Member right, and referred him to Vote 6, which deals with these scientific services. It may be that, as the hon. Member grows older and studies these things more, he will find that there are such things as Greenwich Observatory, charting the seas, and services of that kind. When the hon.
Member refers to his high authority in regard to poison gas and germs, how silly it was as connected with this Vote. What have germs that are to kill all human kind and poison gas that is to destroy crops to do with the Navy? The bon. Member conjured up quite a new idea. Whether it will take root and become an additional expense on the Navy Estimates, I cannot say, but, apparently, torpedoes are to discharge poison gas at towns on the coast, to the death and damnation of every inhabitant.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) has been much longer in the House than has the hon. Member to whose speech he is referring, and I think he will realise that this matter comes on a different Vote from the one we are now discussing.

Sir G. HOHLER: I agree, but I think, in justice, there sits the offender. However, I abide by your Ruling. I wish to make what is a comparatively small point, but these small points are of great importance to individuals. I wish to draw the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to the position of what are called the supply services. There has been a great lack of promotion there. I think I am right in saying that under an Order of 1910 these supply services, which I think also include the writers, were granted warrant rank, but it was granted to them for long and zealous service. That means something like 10 to 18 years. These services are filled, through advertisements, by men partly drawn from shore, to whom is held out the prospect that they will obtain warrant rank and so get commissioned rank on retirement, which is of vast importance in regard to their comfort in later life. That has proved to be a fallacious promise, because there are other Orders which have qualified and somewhat cut it down, though I will not deal with them now.
These men coming from the shore may be 18 years of age or they may be older, and if they are older, it is fatal to their chance. Recently the Admiralty have been admitting to the Navy boys from Greenwich school, who enter the Navy at 18, and consequently, when the time comes for promotion, which is necessarily
limited, the awards for long and zealous service almost invariably go to the boys from Greenwich School, not because their service has been better or more zealous than that of the men coming from the shore, but because they have the immense advantage of having entered the Navy immediately on reaching the age of 18. Therefore, when the time comes to receive the award, they are, in regard to age, in advance of the men from the shore. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will look into this matter. He will understand how the men feel these things and how disappointed they are, when they entered the Navy with this prospect held out to them, that in so few cases it can be realised.
I am not going to ask my hon. and gallant Friend to reply now, because I have given him no notice of this question, and it is probable that he is not familiar offhand with the Orders that deal with it. Therefore, I propose, if I may, to write to him on the subject, in order that it may be looked into, but I thought I would like to call attention to it now, because men often think that, unless you put their views before the House, they are never dealt with at all. It is not true, but it is better to put these matters before the Admiralty in the House, so that the men will know that their case is being raised and considered.

Mr. AMMON: There are two points that have been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) which I want to emphasise. In the first place, I hope the hon. and gallant Member the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty will be able to give us some definite information as to what action the Admiralty have taken with regard to the rather alarming rate of tuberculosis among the men below decks, and whether anything is being done to meet the position that arises when they have to be compulsorily retired from the Service. I have had to bring a few cases before the Admiralty during the last year or so, which show that this is rather a serious matter. The only other matter to which I want to refer is the question of promotion from the lower deck, and is concerned with the title of "mate." I do not want to exaggerate, but I have had three or four letters on this subject from men who evidently feel it a grievance that they are rather speckled birds, so
to speak, among the officer class when they get there with this particular title, via the wardroom instead of via the gunroom, which one suggests can be done now, as you are recruiting at a lower age than formerly. Germane to that, on page 12 of this Vote, is a footnote referring to 555 cadets in Dartmouth College. An investigation was being made in the Admiralty with a view to infusing new blood into the officer class, and, in view of the spread of higher education among the mass of people, to see whether it would be possible to recruit the cadets from the secondary schools. Hitherto, for the main part, the cadets have been recruited from the preparatory schools, but that system is out-of-date, and I should like to know whether the matter is being pursued.

6.0. p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: This Debate has ranged over a very wide area, and a certain number of points which have been raised have been ruled out of order. I shall not, therefore, answer those points, but I shall be glad to give any information in my power to the hon. Members who raised them if they will refer to me; for instance, with regard to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) as to the steps we have taken to find employment for officers and men when they leave the Service, I shall be glad to explain the whole system to him. An important point that has been raised refers to the numbers on Vote A. It is rather sad for us who have laboured so hard, and I think effectively, to reduce the numbers of the Navy to what we consider the lowest possible figure, to find how little sympathy we receive, or how little satisfaction we seem to give to Members of the Opposition. They are like Oliver Twist asking for more, and at the present moment we do not see our way to give them more.
The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) was rather typical of a certain type of mind in the way in which he was perfectly content to accept as gospel the opinion of the Geddes Committee, and was satisfied to believe that, because the Geddes Committee decided by a stroke of the pen, so to speak, that a certain number of officers and men was necessary to the Navy at that date, that
figure was the right figure for the present time. He spoke contemptuously of the action of the Admiralty in regard to the Geddes Report by saying that they torpedoed it. He did not explain why the Admiralty torpedoed it. The Admiralty, at the time considered that the Committee had arrived at their figures on a wrong basis. The Admiralty reply stated:
The Committee fell into almost every possible error in the series of calculations leading them to the conclusion that only 86,600 men were required for the service of the Fleet. For instance, they omitted to make any allowance whatever for the fact that men would be sick, and on passage to and from foreign stations, at the moment of mobilisation, as at any other moment—an omission of some thousands. They treated 4,347 men whose posts are fixed in peace, and who, therefore, cannot be used for training reliefs, etc., as if they were available for these purposes, and thus introduced another error amounting to thousands into their calculations.
I will not go further into the answer of the Admiralty at the time. I am only pointing out that it is extremely difficult for any body of persons, however gifted and talented they may be, to go into technical matters of this nature and lay down the gospel without taking into consideration every available fact.

Sir G. COLLINS: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to reply to this further point? How is it that eight years have passed and other navies have been reduced? The Geddes Committee reported in 1921, a new situation has arisen to-day, and yet the Admiralty are still asking for 10,000 more men.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If the hon. Member will allow me Jo develop my argument, I will try to reply, because this is a matter to which I have given very serious consideration, and on which I have worked very hard, and therefore I feel that I can answer him perfectly well. The statement which he makes that the personnel of other navies have been reduced is open to considerable question, but that does not enter into this matter at all. We have to find out how many men are required for the ships that form our Fleet, and we have to take into consideration a great many points which escape observation at first sight. Up to the present it has been the practice of the Admiralty to base
their numbers on the Fleet of two years ahead. That has been due to the fact that the training of the seamen has to be carried through, and we have to contemplate what ships we shall have to man in two years' time. But unless we have an absolutely stable programme, and do not alter it in any particular, this procedure may lead sometimes to our having too many men, and we decided that it would be better to frame our numbers on the actual Fleet which we have to man for the year in question. This has enabled us to reduce our numbers this year. It may be that if the programme of new construction continues, the numbers to which we have reduced the personnel now will have to be increased. The hon. Member will realise that it is a matter of considerable difficulty to make the calculations which are necessary to ensure our always having the correct number of personnel for our ships at a given moment. There is also the larger question why we require these men when, as the hon. Member thinks, there is no possibility of war. That really does not affect the picture as far as the Admiralty are concerned. The hon. Member may make that charge against the Government or against our foreign policy, but the Admiralty have to see that the Navy have the numbers required at a particular time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is quite a new doctrine that the Admiralty takes refuge behind the Foreign Office.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I should have thought that it was obvious to almost anybody that the duty of the Admiralty primarily is to see that we have an efficient Navy, and the size of that Navy is decided by Parliament. Parliament having decided the size, our task is to see that it is well manned and up-to-date. That is the task of the Admiralty as I understand it, and I imagine that that is the general view.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That is not what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman at all.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the number depended on our foreign policy.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: So it does, obviously. There is nothing in the least opposed in the two remarks that I have made, and I cannot see what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has to suggest to the contrary. The point is that we have to see that we have an adequate number of men for our purposes and not a man more, and that is what we are striving to do at the present time.
The next question which aroused most attention was that of the promotion of ex-mates. It is a very difficult problem and one which the Admiralty is keeping under consideration. Up to the present only two mates have been promoted to the rank of commander, one in December, 1926, and one in December last. I admit, and it is fair to say, that at first sight; this looks a very small number in proportion to the number of mates, but it must be explained that when the rank of mate was established in 1912, it was provided that, as far as possible, candidates should be selected who were not over the age of 25, though it was recognised that this age might be exceeded at first. In point of fact, however, most of those promoted were above 25 years of age, with the result that up to the present such of these officers who have attained sufficient seniority as lieut.-commanders to be considered for promotion to commander have been greatly handicapped by their being so much older than officers of the same seniority. In fact, in one of the two cases of these promotions the officer who was promoted was the most junior but one by seniority of those promoted and in the other case he was the most junior of all. Yet in both cases these promoted mates were appreciably above the normal age of promotion. Promotion to commander is by strict selection and in present conditions, a considerable percentage of officers who were entered in the normal way as cadets cannot expect promotion beyond the rank of lieut.-commander.
It is only to be expected, therefore, that a very small proportion of ex-mates, with the handicap of age and no early training as an officer, will be sufficiently outstanding to win promotion in competition with other officers. It may be
argued, of course, that ex-mates have not been given a fair opportunity of showing what they can do. It is the case that a very few of them have specialised, but that is due almost entirely to their not having volunteered to the same extent as other officers, possibly under the mistaken idea that they would not be selected. Apart from specialisation, there is no ground for saying that the best appointments are not open to ex-mates. The future position, however, should be better. Among the officers who were promoted from mate to lieutenant in 1918 and later there is a bigger sprinkling of younger officers, and it is probable that, when the officers of these seniorities come into the running for promotion, a larger number of ex-mates will be found in the list of those selected.
For those promoted to mate in more recent years who will not, of course, come into the zone of seniority for promotion for some time, the position with regard to age is still better. In 1920 the whole system of promotion to mate was revised, with a view to bringing down as much as possible the ages at which promotion takes place, and in 1923 a further extension of the field of selection of mates was made by making ratings who had qualified for leading rate eligible, with the result that the maximum age of promotion to mate is now kept down to about 25, while promotion may take place at the age of 21. It must, however, be remembered that in any case the number of ex-mates on the lists is but a small proportion of the number of other officers, and even if the same percentage were promoted to commander, the number of promotions would still be small. I think that is a fairly obvious fact at the present time. The number of promotions of ex-mate (engineering) to engineer-commander has been nine. This greater number is due to the fact that the chances of promotion to the rank of commander in the engineering branch for engineer officers generally are much more favourable than is the case with executive officers.
As regards promotion to mate, the position is that practically all the ratings who are qualified and recommended and are found suitable for promotion are promoted. The whole question of the position of mates, which has been raised in the Debate to-night, is one which the
Admiralty has constantly under consideration, and I can assure hon. Members that it is our intention in every way possible to help deserving men to get on in the Navy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand the hon. and gallant Member to say that all deserving men were promoted to mates, but that only eight were qualified and suitable out of the whole Navy in 1928? That was the number he gave me on 14th March, in answer to a question.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: What I said was that practically all the ratings who are qualified and recommended, and are found suitable for promotion, are promoted. A point of considerable interest was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull regarding the changes we have made in the naval staff. He alluded to me then as being cynical.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, that was about the mates. I said you had the First Lord's cynicism, but not his wit.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I could not understand why the hon. and gallant Member said what he did. Anyhow, he alluded to my lack of wit in this or some other subject. I want to try to make the House understand that the changes which we have made in the constitution of the naval staff exactly carry out what I promised they should. The changes have not reduced the efficiency of the naval staff, but have reduced the personnel to a certain extent. The hon. and gallant Member lamented what he called the suppression of the trade division. To say that it has been suppressed is not accurate. We have transferred the duties which were done by that division to other divisions of the naval staff. The policy upon which we have acted has been to reduce the various divisions and sections, but to leave the staff in such a condition that, should it be necessary, it could be immediately expanded on the same lines as it was before. In other words, we have reduced the number of divisions but left them in a position in which they can be restored at a moment's notice should the occasion arise. We have not done away with the work which was done by these divisions. We have merely, for the time being, and I hope for all time,
because no one wants war, brought them into a smaller compass.
Then the hon. and gallant Member lamented the fact that we had reduced the Board of Admiralty by one Sea Lord. He was very anxious that the Navy should be strongly represented on the Board, and that the naval members should have a large majority over the civilians. The Board of Admiralty has still a majority of naval members, and the member who will no longer be a member of the Board was a comparatively new addition. I do not think the hon. and gallant Member need fear that the interests of the Navy will not be amply looked after by the remaining members. Of course, the Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff, who carries out such important functions at the Admiralty on the staff will remain and will still be the Assistant of the Chief of the Naval Staff.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Where does the saving come in?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: A small monetary saving is effected, but it is more a matter of principle, of cutting down from the top all through the branches of the Admiralty, and I think that it is a step in the right direction. If the hon. and gallant Member had had as close a connection with the work of cutting down the staff of the Admiralty as I have had he would realise that it is a very difficult and ungrateful task, and one that requires to be done systematically. The best way always is to begin at the top. There was another question which, I think, strictly speaking, hardly arises under this Vote, but I know the House is always interested in it, and that is the serious question of tuberculosis in the Navy. I propose now to say a few words on that matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: That question is not in order on this Vote.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I bow to your ruling, Sir, but it is a matter which has been discussed largely during the Debate, and, therefore, I thought I might say three or four words about it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I intervened to point out that it was not in order when an attempt was first made to discuss it.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It has been discussed since you left the Chair, I think.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On that point of Order. May I put this consideration to you, Mr. Speaker? If the incidence of tuberculosis in the Navy is heavy, would not that create a wastage of men and lead to greater recruiting, and, without going into the medical side, would it not be possible to refer to the actual figures of the men lost to the Fleet through tuberculosis?

Mr. SPEAKER: That consideration might apply to a good many other things. It would not be in order to discuss it on this Vote.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Young) raised some questions with regard to engine-room artificers. I admit there is a great deal to be said on the points which he raised, and I will give them most serious consideration. I can assure the hon. Member that the letter to which he referred will be answered as soon as possible, and I am only sorry that it has not been answered before now.

Mr. R. YOUNG: Could the hon. and gallant Member say anything with regard to the necessity for the extra executive officers?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am afraid that at the moment I am not in a position to answer the hon. Member, but I will supply him with the information as soon as I possibly can. The same remark applies to the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler). I will have them carefully considered. I think those are the main points raised in the course of the Debate.

Mr. AMMON: There was the point about the cadets, the point as to how you are recruiting cadets and whether you are exploring that question further.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am glad the hon. Member reminded me of that point. We are looking into this matter; obviously we have got to take into consideration the question of officers; when it comes to reducing the numbers of the Fleet we have to consider the question of

officers as well as of men, and we are considering all the points that he mentioned.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I gather from what the hon. and gallant Member has said that he himself is dissatisfied with the mates' scheme. As he knows, in a democratic age this is a question which assumes very great importance. The general feeling is that these men are not getting their proper chance or proper experience. All that is required of the Admiralty is an assurance that a proper inquiry will be held into this matter, because we cannot afford to discourage the grant of commissions to men who rise from the lower deck. I raised this matter on the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," and I do not desire to take up the time of the House with it again, but I would ask the hon. and gallant Member if he could see his way clear to give an undertaking that this matter will be inquired into, particularly and foremost with a view to abolishing the very name of "mate," which creates an invidious distinction.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am not in a position to say that we will have an inquiry. I do not know what the hon. Member means. Is it some special inquiry?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: An inquiry such as was held into marriage allowance for officers, for instance, and certain other things.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I can assure the hon. Member that this is a matter to which we shall give, and are giving, our most serious attention, though what the result of that consideration will be I do not know.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: My hon. and gallant Friend is aware that the House is anxious to hear something about tuberculosis, and he is undoubtedly anxious to give some information. Would he see that that point is raised on Vote 3?

Question put, "That '99,800' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 80.

Division No. 270.]
AYES.
[6.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell


Albery, Irving James
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raine, Sir Walter


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Harland, A.
Ramsden, E.


Berry, Sir George
Harrison, G. J. C.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bethel, A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Betterton, Henry B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxfd, Henley)
Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ti'y)


Blundell, F. N.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Ropner, Major L.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hills, Major John Waller
Ross, R. D.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hilton, Cecil
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Salmon, Major I.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandon, Lord


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Burman, J. B.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Savery, S. S.


Campbell, E. T.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hume. Sir G. H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Christie, J. A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Clayton, G. C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cockerill Brig.-General Sir George
Knox. Sir Alfred
Storry-Deans, R.


Colfox, Major wm. Phillips
Lamb, J. Q.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cope, Major Sir William
Little. Dr. E. Graham
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Couper, J. B.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Looker, Herbert William
Templeton, W. P.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lougher, Sir Lewie
Thompson. Luke (Sunderland)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere
Thomson, Sir Frederick


Dalkeith, Earl of
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Dr. Vernon
McLean, Major A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Waddington, R.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Making. Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Margesson. Captain D.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


England, Colonel A.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Erskine. Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Forrest, W.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nelson, Sir Frank
Withers, John James


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wolmer, Viscount


Gower, Sir Robert
Newton. Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Womersley, W. J.


Grant. Sir J. A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsfld.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nield. Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Oakley, T.
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Hacking, Douglas H.
Percy. Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Hammersley, S. S.
Pitcher, G.



Hanbury, C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Edge, Sir William
Lowth, T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacLaren, Andrew


Ammon, Charles George
Gillett, George M.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
March, S.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Montague, Frederick


Barnes, A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Barr, J.
Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.


Beckett. John (Gateshead)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Naylor, T. E.


Bellamy, A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold


Benn, Wedgwood
Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Owen, Major G.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hardie, George D.
Palin, John Henry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Harris, Percy A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.


Cape. Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
Purceil, A. A.


Clarke, A. B.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cluse, W. S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scrymgeour, E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kelly, W. T.
Shield, G. W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kennedy, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesday)


Davies. Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Day, Harry
Lawrence, Susan
Snell, Harry


Duncan, C.
Livingstone, A. M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dunnico, H.
Longbottom, A. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Sullivan, J.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wiggins, William Martin



Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Townend, A. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)



Third Resolution read a Second time.

Ordered, That the Resolutions which upon the 12th day of March were reported from the Committee of Supply and which were then agreed to by the House be now read:
That a number of Air Forces not exceeding 32,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Homo and Abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930.
That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 150,500, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930.
Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and Air Force; and that Secretary Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, Mr. Bridgeman, Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare, Mr. Duff Cooper, Lieut.-Colonel Headlam and Sir Philip Sassoon do prepare and bring it in.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

"to provide, during Twelve Months for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and Air Force," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out "£14,244,000" and to insert instead thereof "£14,243,900."
I would like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has any desire to leave a monument to himself. I do not mean a stone monument, but something by which he will be remembered by the officers of the Navy. My suggestion is that he should introduce a proposal making provision for the marriage allowances of the officers of the Navy and Royal Marines. No one has traversed this proposal, and, although the hon. and learned Member for Gilling-
ham (Sir G. Hohler) once objected, when he found out what we were talking about he withdrew his objections. I want to know what has happened to the £600,000 which was originally voted for this purpose? Has it gone to help to make up the £23,000,000 to the mineowners. Is there any hope of preventing this continual injustice to the officers of the Navy and the Royal Marines? It has been said that in reducing the pay of the officers and men in the Navy the Government took into consideration the fact that the cost of living had gone down. I would remind the First Lord of the Admiralty that the two main items of expenditure which the naval officer's wife has to meet are rent for housing or lodgings, and the education of her children, and the cost of neither of those two items has gone down. In my opinion, the First Lord of the Admiralty in this respect has betrayed a very deserving class of the Navy that has served him and his predecessors well in the past, and I think some explanation is required.
I want to raise another aspect of this question. During the War, marriage allowances were granted to the seamen, stokers, petty officers, sergeants of marines, and the warrant officers. If they were married men, they received a separation allowance, and they still receive a marriage allowance. Now the Board of Admiralty have raised the age to 25, with the result that, if a seaman or a petty officer aged 26 chooses to marry, he receives a separation allowance, but, if he is 24, 23, or 22 years of age, he does not receive that separation allowance. What right has the First Lord to say at what age a seaman should marry? We take the pick of these young men for the service of the State, and we take a very fine type indeed. You have in the Naval Service to-day what is really an hereditary class, who join as seamen and boys, and they have as much tradition in naval families as any generation of Admirals. These young men are looked after from the time they enter the Service, and, if at the age of 21 they choose to marry, I should have thought that it would be a very good thing for the State to encourage them to do so.
What right has the First Lord of the Admiralty to lay down that, if these young men choose to marry under 25 years of age, they shall not have separation allowances. May I have an explanation on that point? I do not want to divide the House on this question, but I hope that the House will support me, so that something may be done to rectify the matter.
I want also to ask a question referring particularly to pay. Is it a fact that the petty officer instructors of boys in training ships—a very important body of men indeed, who have the handling, training and supervision of the young seamen boys, who mould them and lead them by their instruction, and whose work decides very largely their future usefulness to the Service—receive no extra pay as boys' instructors in the Fleet training squadron, while in the shore training establishments they do receive extra emoluments? This is not a very great matter in money to the State. The extra pay for boys' instructors is only a few pence—6d. I think—a day, but it means a lot to a married petty officer. I have had a good deal to do with the training of boys in the Service, and very interesting work it is. We got an excellent type of petty officer—men of very good character, very devoted and industrious in their work, who were really fathers to the boys, and looked after them extremely well; but they were mostly older petty officers, who had not taken the higher gunnery and torpedo ratings. They had not the chance of earning the higher pay of the higher gunnery and torpedo ratings, and the little extra money that they got for looking after the boys was most welcome to them, as they were mostly married men with families. I do not know what the present scale is. If they receive this extra pay, well and good, but, if they do not, I think that the First Lord should look into the matter, because it is essential that you should get the very best of your petty officers for this important work, and ambitious and efficient men should be encouraged to volunteer for it. If the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to look into that matter, and if he could give me an answer now, I should be very grateful.

Mr. KELLY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so in order to ask one or two questions. I am afraid I cannot see why my hon. and gallant Friend should not divide on this Amendment, as it would not take away from the officers and men any sum of money even if we were to carry it. There is an item on page 20 of the Estimates with regard to which I trust some explanation will be given. It refers to the wages of officers, seamen and boys, and speaks of a decrease of £189,000. The explanation given for that is a very curious one. It is said to be mainly due to reduction in numbers, lower average rates of pay, and smaller requirements for special pay and unemployment insurance, modified by increased requirements for good conduct pay. May we know what is the lower average rate of pay which is referred to, and also what is the nature of the modification due to increased requirements for good conduct pay? I should also like to call attention to a statement of a somewhat similar nature on page 23, dealing with wages and allowances for the Royal Marines. There is a decrease of some £8,000 in that case, but this decrease is said to be mainly due to reduction in numbers, modified by an increase in the average rates of pay and in the requirements for good conduct pay. On page 20 a decrease in pay is referred to, while here we find that there is an increase in pay. Is it the case that the decrease applies to certain sections of the Forces, while other sections are being given an increase?
I desire also to ask for some explanation regarding the Nab Light. I notice that the Admiralty have decided to hand over to Trinity House the Nab Tower at Portsmouth. It is mentioned on page 28 of the Estimates, and I should like to hear some explanation as to why it is being handed over, and what are the conditions. Does any financial responsibility rest with the Admiralty in regard to this light? While I realise that the First Lord of the Admiralty has some control over it at the moment, and will still have some control as an Elder Brother of Trinity House, I should like to be quite sure that the conditions of those who will be working in the Nab Tower will be equal to, if not better than, those existing while it is under the
control of the Admiralty. Then I should like to ask one or two questions with regard to the civilians employed at Malta and Gibraltar on miscellaneous services. On page 31 of the Estimate there is an item of £1,583 in the case of Malta, and of £1,604 in the case of Gibraltar. In the case of Gibraltar the amount is the same as that which was asked for last year, but I think we are entitled at this stage to know something more about these items relating to civilians employed on miscellaneous services, and this applies to most of the items which follow those relating to Malta and Gibraltar. Are the people concerned under this heading men who have been sent out from the home yards, and are their conditions similar to those operating in the home dockyards; or are they people engaged in the locality who are paid lower rates and are working under worse conditions than those operating in the home dockyards? I should have liked, had it not been for the time it would take up, to ask also for some explanation with regard to those who are so employed at other places abroad, in the Far East.
I ask these questions because one wants to be sure that those in our employ who are called upon to render service to the Admiralty are being properly paid and have proper conditions. While it is considered essential that we should have the Navy, we should see that those employed in its service are adequately paid. I shall never complain of increased pay for those who are in our employ. I may, and I hope I shall, make big endeavours to reduce the numbers in the Forces, but, while we have those Forces, they should at least be paid a wage of which we need not be ashamed, and one that will afford a reasonable standard of life.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I should like to make a few remarks on a subject raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), namely, that of marriage allowances. It is a subject on which I have taken up the time of the House on previous occasions, and it is so important that it cannot be allowed to pass without further consideration. Personally, I hope that the Admiralty will not give in for one moment to blandishments or persuasion or pressure of any kind in order that marriage allowances to officers
may be granted, as suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. It is, perhaps, proper that I should say that I am neither a bachelor nor a woman-hater, and, therefore, have no personal feeling—

Mr. SPEAKER: I must draw the hon. and gallant Member's attention to the fact that he is out of order in raising the question of officers' marriage allowances on this Vote.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Naturally, I bow to your ruling, but the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull always seems to "get away with it." I hope I shall be in order—

Mr. AMMON: On a point of Order. With every respect, I submit to you, Sir, that the question of marriage allowances is referred to distinctly on pages 24 and 25 of this Vote, where the amounts which are to be paid for this purpose are stated.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am quite aware of that fact, but those are not officers' marriage allowances.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Further on the point of Order. May I ask if it would be in order for an hon. Member on this Vote to argue that the pay of the officers was insufficient, and to ask for a special allowance for married officers—which is what I ventured to do—or, alternatively, to say that it was already sufficient and an increase was not necessary?

Mr. SPEAKER: An hon. Member can argue that the pay is not sufficient, and can give reasons why it is not sufficient, but it is quite clear that the discussion must be confined to what is actually on the Vote. Officers' marriage allowances are not on this Vote; in fact, they do not exist at all in the Navy.

Sir B. FALLE: May I ask on which Vote it is possible to raise the question of marriage allowances for officers? It has certainly been discussed here on more than one occasion.

Mr. SPEAKER: A question of this kind can be discussed in the general Debates on the Navy. It might have been discussed on the question of getting me out of the Chair, or on Vote A in
Committee, but it certainly cannot be discussed on Report.

7.0 p.m.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I shall not return to that subject, but I hope I shall be in order in congratulating the First Lord on the steps that have been taken to help forward a scheme for pensions for the civilian officers and men of the Admiralty Fleet Auxiliaries. There is one other small point which I should like to raise, and which has a bearing on the pay and emoluments of officers and men in the Navy. More cases than one have come to my notice in which men have died, after having served for many years in the Navy, and their widows have been left without any pension of any kind, the reason being that, when a man has served for, perhaps, 10 years or so, and then has become a warrant officer, it is not until he has served for a certain time, according to the regulations, as a warrant officer, that his widow becomes entitled to a pension in the event of his death. I have already put before the Admiralty a case of that description. My point is that the Admiralty, or in fact any department of the State, should be responsible for the widow of a man who has served in the Service in any capacity at all, and who at any time has been qualified, as far as his widow is concerned, to draw a pension in the event of death, and that they should see that the widow is not left without anything at all. The difficulty which has arisen in this case is that, while the man was on the lower deck as a rating, he was paying in the ordinary way for health insurance and so forth out of his pay. There was an interval between his ceasing to be a rating and becoming an officer and his widow becoming qualified when he died for a pension. She never did become qualified, because the money that was paid during the time he was a rating was discontinued in the interval while he was qualifying for a warrant officer's pension.
The result is that the widow of an excellent man and officer has not at the present time one single farthing of pension either from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Pensions, or the Admiralty. That does not seem right. I would like to impress on the Parliamentary Secretary the necessity for filling that gap and of making perfectly sure
that such a case of real hardship as that cannot arise. No rating who becomes a warrant officer should ever be put in the position, as in this instance, of having to leave his widow without a single farthing in any form of pension. I should very much like the Parliamentary Secretary to answer that and to give me an assurance that it will be looked into and this gap filled.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see anything in this Vote about pension rights. It is a question of pay and not of pensions. That comes under another Vote.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I was not referring so much to pensions as to deductions from a man's pay, which incidentally go towards the building up of a pension.

Mr. AMMON: I rise only to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman an opportunity to itemise the account as to the reductions set forth in Vote A. There is a total reduction of £201,700. That cannot be accounted for wholly by the reduction of 2,000 officers and men and staff. Is it accounted for by the lower rate of pay which has come into operation under the régime of this Government or are there any other factors which go wholly to account for it? It will be remembered that in 1924 the rate of pay of naval ratings was raised, and that since then it has been reduced on the ground of the fall in the cost of living. It is difficult to discover from the statement now set before us exactly where the amount of reduction has taken place. It will help us very considerably if the hon. and gallant Member can tell us to what extent it is due to a reduction in the numbers of the forces and how far it is due to reduced rates of pay. Can he also say whether there have been any considerable change over and transfer in the Navy through passing out under the old rates and recruiting in under the new rates?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I am afraid, owing to the ruling from the Chair, that I may not be able to answer just as I should like to do, the question which the hon. and gallant Member for Hull Central (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has put as to marriage allowances. If the hon. and gallant Member will read what I
said in the Debate when I first introduced the Estimates, he will see what I then stated and will be under no misconception as to my attitude on the subject. The hon. and gallant Member asked why we should not allow marriage allowances to the men when they marry before 25, and he argued that the age should be reduced to 21. The reason is not that I claim—as he attempted to show—to dictate as to the particular time of life when a perrson should marry, but because, in regard to claims for marriage allowance, we go by similar practice to that pursued in the other Services, the Army and Air Force. Therefore, we have that limit in regard to marriage allowances.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Two wrongs do not make a right.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, but all the Services must have some practice, in regard to the interests of economy, if nothing else. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is very fond of talking about economy, but not in this case.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the pay of the Navy has been reduced, but not the pay of the Army, and therefore there is an additional reason why this marriage allowance should come into operation as suggested?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not a question of the marriage allowance, but whether they should have it at 21 or 25. In the interest of economy and something like common practice in the three services, we felt that we were not called upon to give it. The other question which was asked me was about the privileges that boys' training instructors have when they are ashore. The answer is that the men who are employed as instructors on shore are picked men for rather a special kind of training. That is the reason they get advantages which are not given to those who carry out work at sea, which is not quite similar.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand from that answer that training instructors at sea are not picked men?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: They are all good men, of course, but these men are specially chosen for their particular apti-
tude for the work, and that is the reason why they have these special privileges. It is not an uncommon thing for men who are very skilled in one particular line to be paid more than those who are less skilled.
Another question was put to me regarding the Nab Tower and as to its transfer to Trinity House. The structure remains in the custody of the Admiralty, but the light in it and the attendance is transferred to Trinity House. I will look into the matter, but I am quite sure that those who are engaged in it will receive the same terms as they received before. Then there was a question about people employed in Gibraltar and Malta. Might I ask the hon. Member to be good enough to put his points on paper? I hope to go to Gibraltar very shortly, and I will then inquire and see if I can provide him with an answer to the points which are troubling him.

Mr. KELLY: There is one point the right hon. Gentleman missed. On page 20, there is a decrease of £189,000, and then it speaks of some increased requirements, as though there was an increase.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In the first case, the decrease on the page to which the hon. Gentleman refers is due partly to the entry of men at lower rates of wages owing to the cost of living. In the second case, where there is an increase, it is not an increase in the rates of pay. The reason for the extra amount in 1929, as compared with 1928, results from our having under-estimated the average rate in 1928. With regard to the pensions question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish), I will certainly look further into the matter and see if there is any possible way of meeting it. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Camberwell North (Mr. Ammon) opposite about the numbers and pay, I think I had better leave that to the Parliamentary Secretary, who knows rather more about that subject than I do.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The reduction is entirely due to reduction in numbers, and that is why I felt that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be more indebted to us as economists than they appeared to be.

Mr. AMMON: I beg to move, to leave out "£1,907,700," and to insert instead thereof "£1,907,600."
My reason for moving this Amendment is once more to bring before the House the question of the building of the new dock at Singapore. On several occasions, we have discussed this project, and it is a little difficult to understand exactly what advance has been made with it, and the amount of money that has been spent. I have no doubt we shall have full information during the course of the Debate. I do not want to keep the House too long, because this matter has been discussed so frequently that, quite frankly, there is hardly anything new to be said about it, but there seems no reason whatever on the part of those who opposed the project to alter their opinions under any circumstances. I stated the other day that there were two grounds on which we opposed it.
First, there was the ground of policy, and, secondly, the ground that it was unnecessary expenditure. Let us take the first point. It certainly has, whether with good reason or not, caused some considerable alarm to other Powers, as can be seen from extracts from the Press which have been quoted from time to time, that the building of the dock, if not altogether to be taken as an unfriendly act, was one which was not entirely viewed with equanimity. While it can be argued, as has been done, that it is as far from Singapore to Yokohama as from Plymouth to New York, it can also be argued that it is just as far the other way, and therefore that there is little reason, if any, for erecting this particular structure. It is based undoubtedly on a re-orientation of the Navy which has been moved from narrow waters, and is now based on the broader waters of the Pacific, the Mediterranean, and the Atlantic. At a time when the nation is concerned with discussing questions of disarmament, the establishment of permanent peace, courts of arbitration, and so forth, it appears absurd to
go on with a project which seems to belie all the statements we have made, and equally it is most absurd, at a time when we desire to economise in every possible direction against unwise and unnecessary expenditure, to embark on a scheme which, on the most conservative estimate, will cost us not less than £10,000,000.
When discussing this matter some years ago, I said that, if we got away with an expenditure of twice £10,000,000 by the time we were through with it, that was about the minimum, because not only have we to consider the building of the graving dock and the setting up of the floating dock, but there is the question of armaments and fortifications, the provision to be found for the Air Force, etc., and all those things, when you have added them together, are going to let us in for a very considerable expenditure over and above that first estimate. As soon as that is established, the world, no doubt, will be subjected to those alarms and excursions with which we were familiar in the North Sea preceding the conflagration of 1914. It has now become quite a platitude to point out that the greatest assurance against war between the United States and ourselves is not our armies and navies, bat the undefended frontier line between Canada and the United States, where there is neither a single soldier nor it single fort. Up to now, in a certain sense we might have said that was very much the position in regard to the Indian and the Pacific Oceans, that we were not seeking to extend our fortifications and our armaments in that direction, but immediately we do so, whatever may be the intention of the Government at a particular moment and however pacifically we may talk, there are all the potentialities of trouble and warfare in the future, and it only wants people on either side to talk and write as, unfortunately, they are doing in this and other countries to set up that state of mind which the presence of these fortifications and armaments help to accentuate.
It has been said again and again that it is unthinkable that we can ever go to war with our cousins of the United States, and certainly until quite recently Japan was our very good and close ally, and there is no reason, I imagine, to think she is likely to be otherwise; but
any display such as this certainly lends colour to the expectation that such a thing might happen some day. God forbid that it ever should. Certainly, it seems to me that there can be no danger. The threat to Australia seems to me quite fantastic, having regard to the distances and the steaming power of modern ships. So much for the question of policy.
When it comes to the question of expenditure and utility, it seems to me the case breaks down even more for, until quite recently, we had adequate accommodation in the docks at Singapore and, until our bigger capital ships were bulged, there was accommodation for the biggest ships we had afloat, so that there was hardly any lack in that respect. There is considerable division of opinion, not among persons like myself but among naval experts, as to whether the day of the capital ship is not numbered. If that be so, it seems a sheer waste of money that we should pour it out in the way that we are doing. Very likely by the time it is completed the capital ship which it is built especially to accommodate will have disappeared as a serious factor in the navies of the world. It is not that we are decrying the Navy by talking like that. That is ridiculous. We are simply pointing out that the development of the Navy and of modern implements of war is causing one implement to pass out and bringing another in its place, and the development of the fast, heavily armed cruiser and the Air Force and the submarine between them are rendering obsolete the capital ship. Under all these circumstances, it seems absurd that we should go on wasting money in this way.
I return once more to a point I have raised again and again, not so much that there has been some alteration of policy as to whether a graving dock or a floating dock should take precedence in order of establishment. That is after all a very minor concern, unless it throws some light on the construction and the development of that armament. From an answer to a question I got to-day as to the results that have been achieved by the borings preparatory to building the graving dock, there seems to be no very satisfactory answer to be given. There has been a good deal of difficulty in finding rock foundation
among the mud flats before the graving dock can be established, and the House would like to know exactly what development has been made in that line. Has the graving dock been started, and is there any possibility of it being established there, because that will make a considerable difference to the discussions that take place on the construction of this project. Up to now we have simply been pouring our money into these mud flats and swamps. I concede at once that it is probably money well spent in the draining of the hinterland in the prevention of malaria in the mosquito infested ground, but for the purpose of armaments it seems that we have wasted our money very considerably.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us exactly what has been the expenditure up to now, and in what manner it has been expended, that is to say, how much in the actual building of the graving dock, how much in the draining of the hinterland and how much in taking the floating dock out there. I have seen a considerable amount of criticism in the Singapore Press as to the alleged tremendous waste of money that is going on in connection with this dock. It is stated that there is an army of unnecessay officials being sent out from Europe and there is also some complaint—I give this with all reserve—as to the workmen who are being engaged, that they are not qualified European workmen but are, in the main, Chinese. If this phase of the question gives rise to criticism in the Press of Singapore, it calls for some official answer to be made in this House in order that the country may be reassured.

Mr. KELLY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I want to join with my hon. Friend in asking for some clear explanation as to why we are proceeding with this enormous expenditure at Singapore, as to which we have had no explanation up to the present. I hope we shall also have an explanation of the further expenditure to which we have committed the country next year of £580,000 and the further amount of £5,644,000 so far as the Navy is concerned, which has yet to be voted and expended in this way. I should also like to ask as to the conditions of those who are working on this job. Are the wages
regulated by anything that the Admiralty has in operation for its own employés? Is it a case of indentured labour? Is it the case that the Admiralty have not insisted upon the contractors paying higher wages because the planters declare that, if reasonable wages are paid, they would lose the labour they now have on the plantations? If it is essential to proceed with what appears to many of us to be a waste of the money of the people of this country, those who are engaged upon it should be inadequately paid.
I should like some information on some other items that appear in the Vote. I notice that a considerable sum of money has been spent on the purchase of mosquito netting for Bermuda. It is not so long ago since one discovered netting of this kind being purchased by another Department of the State, but not in this country. I would like to ask where this purchase has been made. If it has been purchased outside, from which country did it come? With regard to Chatham, which is mentioned in page 202 of the Estimates, I notice an item in the account of £35,000 for accommodation for artificer apprentices, and an entry of an amount to be voted upon in the years that are to come of £131,000. May we have an explanation as to why we are called upon to provide this huge sum of money for the additional accommodation of artificer apprentices at Chatham?
I will come back to a point which I mentioned in my speech on the last Vote, and the First Lord may be able to ascertain information on the matter on the occasion of his visit next week if he does not already possess it. I notice we are spending some thousands of pounds on the reconditioning of railways both at Gibraltar and at Malta. Are those railways the property of the Admiralty, or are we spending money on the re-stocking of railways in Malta and Gibraltar which belong to other people? I should like an explanation as to the small amount of money that is being expended at Deal. I am glad to see that the Admiralty are spending money in regard to the saving of land in that part. It has to do with sea erosion. I am not taking exception to this expenditure; I would even like to see a greater amount expended in that
direction. With regard to Holton Heath, may we know why a considerable sum is being spent on new buildings—£15,000 this year, with £50,000 to follow in the future? I realise that many of the old buildings which I know well are unsuited for permanent work, but the amount required appears to me to be very considerable. Is it now determined that at Greenock there are to be extensive expansions, and does this mean that we are to have the whole of our torpedo work carried out in that part of the world? I note that a sum of £50,000 is asked for, and I think that some explanation is due to the House.
I wish there were some better method of getting to the bottom of matters and securing clear explanations of the vast sums of money which are being spent on the various services. Judging by the amount which is being asked for, there does not appear to be much indication in the minds of those in charge at the Admiralty as to disarmament in the near future. We are certainly building many permanent structures, but I am hoping that in the very near future we shall be able to secure such a relationship with the nations of the world that it will not be necessary to make such heavy demands upon the people of this country as are being made at the present time.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: The question of Singapore is so much a question for experts that one may well hesitate to speak about it without expert knowledge, but there is a point of view which seems to some of us to be a commonsense point of view, and as it is not that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), perhaps it should be expressed. In the first place, I think one ought to utter a word of caution against the assumption which is indicated in the hon. Member's speech, and is not uncommon in speeches from hon. Members who speak from the benches opposite—the assumption that the days of the large capital ship have been proved to be over. It has not been proved. To the outside world it is a doubtful point of view. The point of view of those who argue that the day of the capital ship is over is what one might call the point of view of the extremist against the point of view of the mass of central opinion on the subject. It would be a dangerous day in a matter of such
vital moment as our naval safety, when we were committed to an extremist point of view.
In regard to the question of Singapore, it appeared from the hon. Member's observations that he made the assumption in discussing this matter that Singapore must be necessarily directed against this or that foreign Power. It appears to me that the precise contrary is the truth in explaining the existence of Singapore from the commonsense point of view. Since the War and the cessation of the German menace, the whole political position with regard to our naval situation has become distinctly generalised. We are no longer considering hostilities with any particular Power. We are considering the general possibilities of the whole world at large. In order to do so we have to extend and decentralise the efficient scene of action of our Navy.
What is remarkable is not that we should be making a base at Singapore now, but that we did not make it long ago. The reason we did not make it long ago was because we were so entirely concentrated on the German menace that we could not spare time and effort for this. Now we have to consider a completely generalised situation. We have to provide that our Navy shall be equally efficient in all parts of the world, and that, I suppose, is the object of the new departure in making the Eastern Base. It is quite obvious that particularly large, ships with their radius of effective guns cannot be equally efficient in all parts of the world unless we have adequate base accommodation in the East, as at Singapore. It is simply and solely for that purpose, to increase to the maximum the efficiency of our existing forces, that it is necessary to increase the base accommodation in this manner. There may be a question of what sort of Navy we should have, whether we should have a Navy of this size or that size, but having the Navy on the seas that we have, and that which is apparently prescribed by our naval advisers, it is common sense economy that we should make it as efficient as possible, some of us remember the great perils and anxieties of the early days of the Great War, when we had no adequate base accommodation even in our own North Sea.
Lastly—and it appears to me that it is a new aspect of the situation that has to
be taken into account in considering this particular provision—is it not a fact that the British Empire is becoming rapidly more decentralised? It is becoming less and less a band of Dominions under the leadership and to some extent under the control of the old country. It is becoming more and more a band of equal and free nations bound together by the bonds of the Imperial tie. That being so, is it not perfectly natural that we should find it necessary also to decentralise the scene of action of the British Navy, and that we can no longer continue looking upon one particular point of the sea, that centred in the British Isles, as the only centre of the sphere of its operations? One looks for the brightest hope for economy in naval expenditure in the future not so much to saving on essential auxiliary services, such as base accommodation, but to the day when a greater share of the cost of the Imperial navy shall be taken by other member States of the Imperial family of Nations. In order to further that, the Navy must render equally effective service to all members of the Empire.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The only aspect of the Singapore question, as it appears to me as a practical man at the moment, is that the new works there are to have 15 times more money than the works at Devonport. Devonport is full of unemployment, and I rise solely for the purpose of saying this. There are a number of works to be undertaken, according to this Estimate, in Devonport, most of them works of great urgency, which are being delayed—works which mean the employment of men. No announcement made by the First Lord in his speech last week gave greater cause for hope than his statement that we had now reached, or he trusted that we had now reached, a state of stabilisation. Within seven days of that announcement being made which brought, as I say, so much relief to my constituents, 20 labourers have this week received notices of discharge, and it is anticipated that more are to follow. I want to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, what he meant when he held out that hope to my constituents. One would imagine that after discharging nearly 9,000 men and reducing the numbers employed in the dockyards from 36,679 to 27,808, he would have done enough. One would have thought also that the Government could have afforded to prevent the
invasion of Devonport and other dockyard towns by discharged miners when there are a great many men being thrown out of work in this way.
I want to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he cannot possibly find some way of helping these men who have received these notices of discharge and withholding the further notices of discharge which, I understand, are contemplated. The position is made very much worse by a recent decision of the Admiralty, come to for some inexplicable reason, to reduce the period of notice that a dock-yardman is to receive from two weeks to one week, as if one week were enough for a Government employé to look round and make a new life for himself. I invite the First Lord of the Admiralty to reconcile the action taken by his Department this week with the speech which he made last week, and to hold out some hope that these men will not be flung on to an already overloaded employment market.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member raised the question last week, and he knows that there is no point in it. He suggested that miners from South Wales were being employed in Devonport Dockyard.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, I did not.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Then there is no point in the statement.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to appreciate my point? If he throws men out of the dockyard, as he has been doing for the past five years, those men become unemployed and have to seek other work. If you send miners into Devonport, the chances of our own people getting work are diminished. If the miners are put into work, they are put to work which discharged dockyardsmen ought to have, because they have been waiting for it in their own town.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I quite understand that, but the hon. Member knows perfectly well that that matter comes under another Ministry. If he has any case against me he will have to prove it, and he cannot do that. He cannot prove that I have employed discharged miners in the dockyards when there were dockyard men out of work whom I could have employed.
He cannot prove that. Therefore, he had better transfer his attention to the Ministry of Labour. To try to make a case against the Admiralty on such a matter is very unfair, and he ought not to attack the Admiralty on that particular point. He knows perfectly well that one cannot always keep exactly the same number of men employed. With respect to stabilisation, I said what I meant. I said that, subject to small fluctuations, I hoped to secure stabilisation. Now, the hon. Member proceeds to say that I am providing for fewer men in the Estimates for this year in connection with the dockyards. Again, he is wrong. It is true that under Vote 8, with which we are not engaged at the moment, there is a reduction of 680, but on other Votes there is an increase of 1,140, so that I am actually providing in these Estimates for an increase of 460 men. Will the hon. Member please understand that, and not repeat his statement that I am reducing the number of men?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it not a fact that the estimated numbers to be employed in the dockyards are decreased? I am referring to the numbers of men and not the amount of money.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am providing for an increase of 460 men. With regard to Singapore, the hon. Member for Camberwell North (Mr. Ammon) knows quite well that the general question has been argued at great length. He said that he did not wish to reopen the whole subject. Since the policy of the Singapore base was started it has been argued several times and I do not think that there are any fresh arguments to be advanced one way or the other. My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Sir H. Young) hit the nail on the head when he said that the advantage of Singapore was that it was a pivotal point which enabled our fleet in the Pacific and Indian oceans to be more mobile and to be nearer to the place where they can be repaired. I have been asked for information as to the amount of money that has been spent upon the Singapore base. The floating dock cost £936,000, including the cost of towage and insurance. Before the Labour Government closed down the works, in 1924, a sum of £72,000 had been spent on preliminary works. From early in 1925 to the 31st
March, 1929, the expenditure actual and estimated, for berth for floating dock, auxiliary works and preliminary works over site has been £630,000, making a total of £693,000. There has been further expenditure on a floating self-propelled crane amounting to £31,000 and on furniture, £2,000. With regard to the total cost, as I said last year, the sum has been reduced by over £3,000,000 from the Estimate, to £7,756,000. Of that, part is contract work and the other part is Admiralty work.

Mr. AMMON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the figures of contributions from the Dominions?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: From the Dominions, altogether, we received £250,000 from Hong Kong, £1,000,000 from New Zealand, and £2,000,000 from the Malay States. These contributions are being paid in instalments. In addition, the Straits Settlement gave us the land, which I think is valued at about £140,000.

Mr. AMMON: Did Australia withdraw?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: When the hon. Members' party were in office, Australia, naturally, did not contribute what they had intended to the Singapore base, because the hon. Member's party declined to go on with it. It would have been a foolish action on the part of Australia to contribute a large sum of money to a Government who were not going to do what they wanted them to do. Instead, Australia spent the money on two cruisers, which were laid down in 1924, for the Australian Navy. The hon. Member asked for information with respect to the staff at Singapore. From the latest return, to the 31st January, the British supervisory staff numbered 25. The workmen sent out under agreement totalled 18, local men employed departmentally, 642, local men employed on contract work 407. The 18 workmen sent out under agreement include pivotal masters, engineers, etc., of dredging craft, which are manned by Asiatic crews.
The hon. Member also asked me about the borings for the graving dock. I am glad to be able to tell him that the foundations are all right. All the local labour is engaged and employed in accordance with the Labour Ordinance of the Straits Settlements. Therefore,
the local conditions as to wages and hours are observed. Generally, Admiralty practice regarding staffing of work at Singapore is, in essentials, on all-fours with that of corresponding authorities such as the Public Works Department, the Singapore municipality, the Federated States Railways, and the Singapore Harbour Board. The House may rest assured that the rates of pay are in accordance with what is paid to other people in these various classes of labour. The subordinate technical staff such as foremen are with few exceptions on European agreements. Outdoor foremen of the ganger type are generally Asiatics. The staff sent out from England is the minimum number required for ensuring the efficiency of the work and as the contract work extends it is anticipated that the number will have to be increased. This information answers the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and also the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), who is not present.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think the right hon. Member did himself an injustice. I said that he was taking power to reduce the number of men employed in the dockyard, and I find that that is so. I do not understand why he should have corrected me on that point. On page 430 of the Estimate it is stated that the numbers for 1928 amounted to 28,484, while the estimated number for this year is 27,880. It was on these figures that I based my statement that he is taking powers to reduce the numbers employed.

Major PRICE: The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) represents his own views with regard to the Navy Estimates and not the views of his party. His party, as is well known, has seen fit to put forward a policy which means a reduction of the Navy. The Liberal policy would mean reductions in work to the extent of about 80 per cent. Of course, they could not effect reductions to that extent and throw the officers and staff and men on the streets without making provision in regard to pensions. With regard to Pembroke dock, I think we stand in a rather more favourable light and that it is to be utilised for the service of a coming arm. There is a realisation that that great harbour upon the Western ocean will be the future
aeroplane and seaplane base of this country. Whether my expectations will be fully realised or not I do not know, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say that he has concluded arrangements with the Air Ministry for the establishment of a seaplane base at Pembroke in the near future, and that that will be the commencement of an era of prosperity in the dockyard.
The hon. Member for Devonport is wrong in the figures which he has quoted. If he will look at page 430 he will see that the total of all classes of men to be employed in the naval dockyards at home is 31,260 this year, compared with 30,800 last year showing an increase, as the First Lord said, of 460. His arguments and the arguments of those who belong to the Liberal party upon naval matters must be exceedingly difficult to square with the policy of the party that they serve. The provisions made in regard to the Singapore base have been so admirably explained by the right hon. Member for Norwich (Sir H. Young) that anything that I could say on that matter would be useless. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make a definite statement with regard to the future of Pembroke Dockyard, and relieve the anxiety of those who are suffering.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like to answer the statement made by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha). He quoted figures which are given on page 430, but he stopped at a point convenient to himself. There is an apparent reduction in the figures that he quoted, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Price) has said, if the hon. Member will look at the last item he will see the statement:
In addition, the average number expected to be employed in the several Dockyards at home upon work provided for under other Votes, and charged direct thereto, or upon other Services on Repayment, 2,840 this year, as against 1,700 last year.
8.0 p.m.
That is an increase of 1,140, which you set off against a reduction of 680 and gives you, as I have said, an increase of 460 altogether.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: They are not in the dockyards. Those are other persons.

Mr. BROMLEY: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has quite satisfied the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) that he is trying to do his duty by keeping up or increasing the number of people employed in the Royal Dockyards, but I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has a responsibility in other directions to other people who may not be directly in the employ of the Admiralty. I do not intend to pose as being sufficiently an expert in naval strategy to criticise the Singapore dock venture, but I am afraid, if we are going to spend £10,000,000, or what is more likely, £20,000,000, that the right hon. Gentleman will have to skimp other employment in this country. I want to point out that there are other places beside Government dockyards which are well equipped for shipbuilding. May I refer to my own constituency, Barrow-in-Furness. We have suffered a tremendous amount of unemployment but, after great efforts, we have been able to get to grips with it. We have a naval dockyard equipped especially for Admiralty work. It employs a minimum of 15,000 men, but at the moment it is employing about 12,000. I am told that they can see the end of the work—

Mr. SPEAKER: Unless the hon. Member is raising a question in regard to naval dockyards it will not be in order on this Vote.

Mr. BROMLEY: I am sorry if I am not in order, and I of course bow to your ruling. I thought, having regard to the responsibility of the Admiralty and the First Lord himself for an increase or decrease in the employment at the shipyards, that this would be within his province, and I only desire to point out the difficulty of finding increased employment in my own constituency when we are spending £10,000,000 far away on something on which even the naval experts appear to be in grave doubt as to its utility.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a very suitable argument for a proper occasion, but it is not suitable on this Vote.

Mr. PILCHER: I want to put a point with regard to the Singapore base, and I shall be able to put it in one or two
brief sentences. I am able to put it with much more precision now than I should have been last week on the Navy Estimates, when I spent several hours trying in vain, Mr. Speaker, to catch your eye. We have heard to-night for the first time the authoritative figures of the all in cost of the Singapore Base. It is now £7,750,000, of which the Overseas Dominions are contributing £3,750,000, because they believe that this naval base in Eastern waters is for their benefit as well as for the benefit of the whole Empire. But I should like to hear how it is, if these are the accurate figures with regard to the cost of the Singapore Base, that we get the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) a former Prime Minister of this country stating repeatedly in the country quite different figures. I have in my hand his ipsissima verba, in a speech which he made at Elgin in 1925, when he said that the cost of this base is to be £60,000,000 sterling.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have you given notice to the right hon. Member that you were going to attack him?

Mr. PILCHER: No, how could I give him notice? He is not here. Besides I am not attacking him at all. All I want to do is to get the real cost of this base proclaimed to the world. The Government has been constantly attacked on the ground that they are squandering money in these vast proportions on this base and then we hear that the actual figures are one-sixth of the figures which are quoted in the country. We have had an example of the same tendency in the House even to-night from the Labour benches, when the figure of £10,000,000 was mentioned, and it was suggested that £20,000,000 would be a much nearer figure. Since the First Lord has given his reply we have had yet another suggestion that it might be another £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 more. My only purpose in intervening in the Debate is to get the matter cleared up so that the taxpayers of this country should know what they are being asked to expend on this project.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have every sympathy with the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) for not having been able to raise
this point before, but I have no sympathy with him in not giving the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) notice that he was going to attack him.

Mr. PILCHER: It is not an attack; it is an inquiry.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is usual to notify a right hon. Member or an hon. Member when you propose to refer to something they have said in the country. The First Lord of the Admiralty found fault with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) for being out of the House at the moment. I must remind the First Lord that this is not the hon. Member for Rochdale's Vote. This is the First Lord's Vote; and I notice that he has found it convenient to go out of the House himself. We are all human, including even First Lords of the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman, when questioned by the hon. Member for Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) about the withdrawal of the Australian grant for the Singapore base, said that the reason why the Australian Government withdrew their grant was that the Labour Government in this country, very wisely I think, dropped the Singapore scheme, and, therefore, it was but natural for the Australian Government to withdraw their grant. But that is not the whole of the story. There was great opposition to the expenditure of this money in Australia by the Labour party there. They opposed it tooth and nail. They won elections upon it, and the Labour Government in Australia was glad of the excuse to get out of the grant of this money. As a matter of fact, I have reason to know, as I meet many Australians, that there are many in that country who believe that this expenditure at Singapore is unnecessary and that if a large battleship base is required in the Pacific it would be far better to have it at Sydney. There are many reasons for this. You can defend a battleship base at Sydney far better than you can at Singapore. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth North (Sir B. Falle) seems to be amused. I remember the election at Portsmouth when he ran in double harness with the late Lord Charles Beresford. I supported Lord Charles Beresford not on political grounds, and in doing so I also supported the hon. and gallant Member who only
got to this House on the back of Lord Charles Beresford.

Sir B. FALLE: Is the hon. and gallant Member making these statements about me? If so, I must point out that on the first occasion Lord Charles Beresford beat me by 1,200, and on the second occasion by 250. That is scarcely getting in on his back.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: And that is nothing to what the hon. and gallant Member will be beaten by next time. But to return to Sydney. You have there a shipbuilding industry, a skilled population, mechanical engineers and fitters, and the whole Australian Army behind it. I would wager this—I am sorry that great naval strategist, the right hon. Member for Norwich (Sir H. Young), has found it necessary to leave the House—that if there is any real threat to Australia, and that is the only reason on which we could defend this expenditure at Singapore—and there is no sign of it at all—our fleet would remove to Sydney. The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth has said that the hon. Member for Camberwell was wrong in saying that Singapore would cost £10,000,000. My hon. Friend was not far wrong. In this Vote we are discussing a total sum of £6,900,000 for the naval base, and another £1,000,000 for oil fuel depots. That is £8,000,000. In addition to this sum which is being spent on this new Port Arthur, as Sir Ian Hamilton described it, the Air Force have to spend another £500,000 on an air base and the War Office another £500,000 on shore batteries and defences. That brings us up to nearly £10,000,000.

Mr. PILCHER: £20,000 was mentioned by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That was the original cost. That was the Estimate of a former Conservative Government. The fact is that the present dock at Singapore is amply sufficient for the new cruisers of 10,000 tons. I admit that the Straits of Malacca are a very important strategic area, but it was quite unnecessary to build this vast naval arsenal with its floating dock, its graving dock, and refitting shops, in order to defend the Straits of Malacca. You could defend the Straits by a submarine mine-
field, long range guns, submarines, and a small Air Force and destroyers; and no Admiral in his senses, in face of such a threat, would attempt to get through the Straits of Malacca. It was absolutely unnecessary to embark on this vast dock and arsenal. The Germans embarked on a similar policy at Tsintau. They created a great arsenal and fortress but the moment the threat of war arose their squadrons were ordered to clear out and get away. They did so; and the whole of that money was wasted. The place was besieged by the Japanese but it did not impede the Allied progress, and all the money which the Germans spent there was sheer waste. This Singapore policy is on the same lines as that. Singapore is unhealthy. I know the place very well. It is all right for a week or two but you soon get run down in the climate, and to keep a large Fleet permanently based there will affect the health of the men very seriously indeed.
I press for an answer to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), as to the wages paid to native workmen engaged in this construction. Is it a fact that local planters complained that the Admiralty were paying too high wages and were taking away the labour that they wanted for the rubber plantations? Is it true that on these representations from the planters the wages were reduced? If so, it is a very serious piece of work. A very handsome contribution has been made by the Federated Malay States, the Sultan of Jahore and other Princes out there, and our subjects there might have some compensation in steady employment and good wages when it is decided to employ coolies instead of British workmen. Then the planters would have to raise the wages on the estates, and a very good thing that would be.
I consider that we had no business to proceed with this Singapore expenditure. This year we are being committed to £580,000. Last year the expenditure was £693,000. But the main part of the expenditure has not begun. The contract has only recently been entered into by the firm of Sir Thomas Jackson, and the heavy payments will come later, unless this ridiculous policy is scrapped, as I hope it will be after the General Election. One of my objections is based on the fact that we have already signed the
Kellogg Pact. Surely that will make some difference to our policy? I find no trace of it in any of the Estimates, certainly not in this one. I think it is extremely likely that in future it will be agreed by the three great naval Powers which alone can build battleships—England, Japan and the United States—not to Build any more, and to allow the present vessels to become obsolete and gradually come off the Navy list. I also think it likely that after the Washington Naval Conference in 1931 these great battleships, costing £7,750,000, will no more be built. That being the case, all this money is being wasted at Singapore.
There is another question. Is it a fact that even the machinery for excavating the graving dock at Singapore and deepening the Channel for the floating dock, has not been ordered in this country and will not give employment here? Is it true that the firm of Jackson have been permitted to order these great excavators from an American firm although, as I am informed, the same excavators could be supplied by British labour in this country? This Singapore policy was entered into in haste without true appreciation of all the factors. It is a mistaken policy. It has given great offence to Japan. The Japanese think that we distrust them, although in the most criticial period of our history they were faithful to us and the Allies. They had no particular reason to come into the War against Germany. Many of the sympathies of Japanese officers were strongly with Germany. The Japanese are-a-sensitive people and they have been greatly offended. However far Singapore may be from Japan, one cannot help feeling that the reason for the building of this base is that we fear some possible future cause of hostility with Japan. Secondly, it is a sinful waste of money. Thirdly, it would be a criminal policy to station a great British fleet there, with young men and boys, in an unwholesome climate right on the equator. I intend to support a reduction of the Vote. I hope that before much more money is spent in the swamps and wastes of the Straits of Malacca, a more sensible Government will be in office.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I must say that I listen with great interest and due respect to the hon. and gallant Gentle-
man who has just spoken, but when listening to him I am always reminded of the outburst which Oliver Cromwell made in respect of the Scottish Covenanters who, like the hon. and gallant Member were always right and could never see anything in anybody else's opinion. Oliver Cromwell said:
I beseech you, dear Brethren, think it possible that you may be wrong.
I am quite convinced that a great deal of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said to-night is wholly wrong. However, it is not a question into which it is worth while entering now, because it has been already dealt with by the First Lord. The hon. and gallant Member referred to Singapore. That is a matter of policy on which the Government has made up its mind and come to a decision, and I believe that decision to be a right one. As to the labour at Singapore, I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we have not reduced the rate of wages paid to the men who are working for us on any suggestion or complaint of the planters. When they suggested, as I understand was the case, that the wages we were paying were too high, a conference was held, and it was then decided that the kind of work that was done on their estates was not comparable with the work for which we were responsible; we therefore maintained the rates of pay which had already been fixed.
As to the machinery used by the contractors at Singapore, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman no doubt knows, the contract did not specify that the plant was to be of British or Dominion manufacture; it would have been impossible for us to insist upon such terms with the contractors, who might already have been in possession of foreign plant which they could use for the purpose. Certain foreign plant has been bought by the contractors, and the reason is that it was supposed to be the most efficient for the purpose. We are convinced, from what the contractors have told us—and I have already informed the House on this point—that throughout the contract they will always give British firms an opportunity of competing in any tender that is made. Of course, it is interesting to find a party which disbelieves in the Singapore scheme; which regards that project as entire waste of money; and which is also opposed to any form of safeguarding, taking this keen interest in seeing that
British industrialists get full advantage from the scheme.

Mr. KELLY: Some of them are members of our trade unions.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We believe in buying British goods!

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Certainly, and it is interesting to find that the party opposite have adopted that cry. With regard to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) as to the figures put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) of the cost of the building of the Singapore Dock, I am afraid that I am not responsible for any of the right hon. Gentleman's exaggerated estimates about this or any other matter. All I can say is that the figures of the estimated cost of the scheme given by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty show the actual sum that we expect the dock to cost. I should like to inform the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Price) that negotiations are now in progress with the Air Ministry on the proposed transference of the dockyard to the Royal Air Force for use as a flying boat station and training centre and it is anticipated that a satisfactory arrangement will be reached. Although we expect an agreement to be reached shortly, it must not be expected that the transference of the dockyard will lead to a large employment of labour, at any rate in the immediate future, but I hope the fact that the dockyard is going to be utilised will be some consolation to the inhabitants of that district.
Various questions were raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), and I am sure he will agree with me in describing them as minor matters, but nevertheless I will do my best to answer his points. The expenditure at Deal about which he spoke is a continuation service and is rendered necessary owing to extensive erosion. It is necessary that we should take measures to preserve access to the range and prevent further erosion. The total cost of the work is estimated at £10,300 but we are only going to spend £3,500 this year. It is
a necessary work and will be spread over a number of years. With regard to the Holton Heath expenditure, that is a new service rendered necessary in order to meet the requirements of cordite production. Certain works have to be carried out in connection with alterations to plant, and the raising of the level of the ground and other matters of that kind. This also is a necessary work and is to be carried out this year. The hon. Member also professed some slight anxiety with regard to an expenditure on wire netting at Bermudas.

Mr. KELLY: Surely not wire? It is mosquito netting.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It is made of brass wire.

Sir REGINALD BANKS: They must be fearful mosquitoes.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The hon. Member was anxious to know whether this wire was of British manufacture. He again showed himself to be very anxious for the interests of the British manufacturer, and I commend him for it.

Mr. KELLY: That is because Members of the Government have not shown themselves to be anxious.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: As a matter of fact, when tenders were obtained for the supply of this wire from England the price quoted was 6d. per foot super, to which would have had to be added the cost of freight. The Officer of Works in Bermudas found that the material could be obtained there at 4¾d. or 4¼d. per foot super without any cost for freight. It was decided accordingly to purchase it from the local ironmongers in Bermudas. In connection with this work, however, the greater part of the cost is entailed by the provision and erection of the woodwork frames. The expenditure at Greenock, to which the hon. Member referred, becomes necessary because we are enlarging Greenock and making it the sole place for the manufacture of torpedoes. The cost will be spread over some years, and should, in the end, lead to a considerable saving of public money. I do not think there are any other points for me to answer.

Mr. KELLY: What about the railways at Malta and Gibraltar?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The work at Gibraltar is rendered necessary by the fact that the railway has become out of date and is in a bad state of repair. It was constructed 20 years ago, and many of the lines are out of the level and at times are submerged by water. The sleepers are practically rotten. The railway has to be reconstructed, and this

work is essential in the interests of efficiency. We have already expended about £4,000. The total estimate is £10,600, and we are asking for £2,000 this year.

Question put, "That '£1,907,700' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 73.

Division No. 271.]
AYES.
[8.33 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Albery, Irving James
Grotrian, H. Brent
Phllipson, Mabel


Applin Colonel R. V. K.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Plicher, G.


Apsley, Lord
Hacking, Douglas H.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Raine, Sir Walter


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Hammersley, S. S.
Ramsden, E.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harland, A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Berry, Sir George
Harrison, G. J. C.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lane. Stretford)


Bethel, A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bevan, S. J.
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxfd, Henley)
Ross, R. D.


Blundell, F. N.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Salmon, Major I.


Bourne. Captain Robert Croft
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hilton, Cecil
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Savery, S. S.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.O. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Shepperson, E. W.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen, Sir Aylmer
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Burman, J. B.
Hurst, Sir Gerald
Smithers, Waldron


Butt, Sir Alfred
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Calne, Gordon Hall
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Storry Deans, R.


Cassels, J. D.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sugden. Sir Wilfrid


Chapman, Sir S.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Templeton, W. P.


Christie, J. A.
Looker, Herbert William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thomson, Sir Frederick


Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.
Luce. Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Colfox, Major William Phillips
McLean, Major A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Couper, J. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Margesson, Captain D.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Eden, Captain Anthony
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Withers, John James


Ellis, R. G.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Womersley, W. J.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fermoy, Lord
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wright, Brig.-General W. O.


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Oakley, T.



Glyn, Major R. G. C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gower, Sir Robert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Major Sir William Cope and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hardle, George D.


Ammon, Charles George
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Harris, Percy A.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Duncan, C.
Hayes, John Henry


Barr, J.
Dunnico, H.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Batey, Joseph
Edge, Sir William
Hirst, G. H.


Bellamy, A.
England, Colonel A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Forrest, W.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Broad, F. A.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Bromley, J.
Gillett, George M.
Kelly, W. T.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kennedy, T.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Not!
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Cape, Thomas
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Longbottom, A. W.


Clarke, A. B.
Grundy, T. W.
Lowth, T.


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Montague, Frederick


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Murnin, H.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Welsh, J. C.


Naylor, T. E.
Scrymgeeur, E.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Oliver, George Harold
Shield, G. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Palin, John Henry
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Pcthick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Potts, John S.
Snell, Harry



Purcell, A. A.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Keel, Sir Beddoe
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Strauss, E. A.



Ritson, J.
Townend, A. E.



Resolutions agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry the First Lord has found it necessary to be away while this Vote is under discussion, because it particularly affects the right hon. Gentlemen, not so much in his capacity as First Lord of the Admiralty as in his capacity as a Member for an agricultural constituency. I understand that only a very small portion of the meat supplied to the men and officers of the Royal Navy is British. On the last Vote the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary had some sarcastic things to say about my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) and myself, because we were disturbed about the purchase of American instead of English machinery for Singapore. I will now give him another opportunity of stating why the Admiralty does not practice what the Members of the Government preach on the platforms of the country. Why is it that so much meat is bought from abroad, when there is such grave distress among agriculturists at home? It would cost a bit more to buy British meat, but the meat would be better.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb) in his place, because he has a peculiar knowledge of this subject, and he will agree that British meat is better than foreign chilled meat. Then why is it not supplied to the Navy? Why cannot our gallant lads be fed on British beef instead of on frozen meat from the Argentine? I should have thought the Admiralty, which is always talking about our vital trade routes and how necessary it is to protect them, would have wanted to encourage British agriculture, but perhaps they do not
want British agriculture to thrive, so that they can come and frighten the lieges and get money for the Navy, because we are only partly self-supporting. I think some explanation is required. This country is not so poor that it cannot afford to help the British firmer. I am glad to see hon. Members for agricultural constituencies on the benches opposite, and I hope they will not be silent and allow this Vote for £3,800,000 for the purchase of Argentine beef to go through while the farms of this country are going out of cultivation, while the farmers are in the bankruptcy court, and while unemployment among agricultural labourers is rife all over the country. I hope the result of the Boston by-election will shake them out of their complacency. My demand is, British beef for British tars. Boys of the bulldog breed should be fed on British bullocks, on mutton from Staffordshire and Oswestry and not from across the ocean.
I would also like to ask the hon. and gallant Member opposite how often fish is given to the sailors. I spent many happy years in the Royal Navy, but fish was never served as a ration in my time. We used to get it ourselves with nets and when we occasionally engaged in exercises with explosive charges that killed a lot of fish, but it was never served out as a ration. The only fish we could get on board, except what we caught ourselves, was tinned salmon. At present, the fishing industry is in a sorrowful plight. We have had to stop the herring fishing season in its height, because there is no market for the fish. From the health point of view, it would be a good thing to have a voluntary ration of fish for the Navy. There are now refrigerating arrangements on board ship which never existed in the old days. It is true that Nelson's Fleet were not served out with fish, but they had no refrigerators. Now we have them and skilled cooks, and fish would help the men and the British fishermen. It must be remembered that on them the Navy depends for valuable reserves, so
that to serve out fish to the Navy would cut both ways. I hope that in future fish will be served out as a voluntary ration, and that, in addition, our brave British tars will be fed on the incomparable meat which is produced in their own country.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I should like to emphasise the latter portion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech. It has been said that fish is food for brains. I suggest, therefore, that it would be good in a double sense, for it would supply nutriment to the men's bodies and assist, if it were necessary, their brain power. Fish is supplied to the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes in considerable quantities. Not long ago, I visited an establishment in Grimsby where some of the finest and best fish—of course, that is the kind we do send from Grimsby, and it is superior to the kind that is sent from Hull—was being prepared for conveyance to certain naval ports.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I did not attack Grimsby.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am not attacking the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I do not wish to do so. He may have to be responsible some day for supplying the victuals of the Royal Navy, and I may have to appeal to him to supply fish. Is the fish which is supplied only supplied through the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes. If no ration of fish is supplied, I wish to press that it should be supplied, for I am sure that it would be in the best interests, not only of the fishermen and the ports, but of the men of the Navy who would have the pleasure of eating it.

Mr. LAMB: I should like to support what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said about the desirability of supplying fresh meat to the Navy while it is in home waters. A very large proportion of the Navy is serving overseas, where it is impossible to provide them with fresh meat, but as far as practicable, it is desirable that British meat should be used for the Navy while it is in home waters. It would not only be an advantage to agriculture, which requires and should receive all the assistance that we can give it, but
also to the men of the Navy to have fresh British meat.

Mr. R. YOUNG: I want to turn for the moment from fresh meat and fish to a question in which I am interested. I have a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to one which I sent to him in regard to recreational outfits for the apprentice artificers in the Royal Navy. In this he says that he is investigating the matter, and I should like to know if that investigation has been carried through, and what decision has been arrived at. The recreational kit of these apprentices is detailed in the Navy Appendix. Somebody took upon himself to order that these boys should get two additional jerseys for their football recreation. Their wages are 1s. a day, and they cannot very well afford to pay the additional expense. Apart from that, anybody who knows anything about the rough and tumble of Rugby football, knows that more than two jerseys are required. Many of the parents felt that this was an additional charge put upon them for which they should not be responsible. The boys were instructed to get these jerseys, although they were not included in the detailed clothing as stated in the Navy Appendix, and the money for them was to be deducted through the canteens. There is no authority for such a deduction through such a channel, and I ask under what authority it was done. I wish to enter a protest against what appears to be the act of some individual who has no real authority for doing it. If there were any authority for it, there was no real authority for deducting the wages through the canteen in the manner in which it was threatened to be done. Probably the details of the recreational outfit will be altered to include these two jerseys, If they are, the two jerseys ought to be given without any charge being inflicted on the boys, or an additional allowance should be made for the upkeep of the recreational outfit.

Mr. HILTON: We have had beef, mutton, fish, and jerseys, and I should like to make an appeal on behalf of the cotton trade, and the supplies for the Navy in which cotton plays a part. I agree with the attitude of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy),
although it is rather surprising to hear him advocating British stuff.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the hon. Gentleman were here more often, he would have heard me frequently advocating it.

Mr. HILTON: I am here very often, and I shall be here oftener still I hope. I believe that the last big contract that was made for supplying the Navy with shoe laces was placed with a foreign country to the extent of 2,000,000 pairs per annum. If the Admiralty do not know this fact, I would like to bring it to the attention of the hon. and gallant Member who is in charge of the Vote. The last contract placed was put up for open tender to the Lancashire manufacturers. Those laces are made of polished yarn, and the polishing of it is a trade which is peculiar to one or two little towns round my district, though not in my constituency. Those laces, when they were delivered, had tags on them marked "Made in England." It was the tags which were made in England; the only part of the laces that were made in England were the tags, and the whole of that yarn, cut in 24- 28- and 30-inch lengths, came from abroad.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Which country?

Mr. HILTON: I do not say that. What I say is that every little helps, and in Lancashire we want every possible assistance that we can have, and we are not getting it. I cannot think it can be to the benefit of Lancashire, or the country, or the Government to give preference to a foreign nation in the matter of supplying 2,000,000 pairs of boot laces for the British Navy. It is a tremendous order, which would keep a huge firm employed for the whole of the year, and I say to the Admiralty, whether it be a question of beef or fish or anything else, that where it has an order to give it should give it where it will mean employment for British labour. I would go further, and say that the Admiralty have been too careless to allow anyone to dump on them laces with tags stamped "Made in Britain" when the laces themselves were made abroad. It shows a little slackness in the Department. If a friend of mine who is an hon. Member of this House happened to be here he would supply more details of the
matter of which I have spoken. It is essential that the Admiralty should tighten up the present slack methods and not allow any foreign material coming into this country to be sold to them as British. I can give chapter and verse for my statements. A contract for 2,000,000 pairs of shoe laces was placed with a foreign country, though we in Lancashire were on short time.

Mr. KELLY: I hope we shall have an explanation of why it has been found necessary to purchase in foreign countries the various supplies which have been mentioned when we believe they could very well have been produced here. I have a question to ask with regard to the victualling yard craft. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the Admiralty are now prepared to state what is to be regarded as a normal week for the men of those craft, so that if they are called upon to work longer hours they may be paid extra for the additional time worked? Sometimes they are called upon to work an excessively long week. Another point with regard to these men is that while the mates and masters are established only a small proportion of the crew are established, and I say the time has arrived when consideration ought to be given to placing a larger number of the men of the crew, if not the whole of the crew, on the established list. This question has been before the Admiralty time and again, and I think a decision might now be come to. The hon. and gallant Member will find the item on page 42 of the Report.
Another point I wish to raise is as to why it has been found necessary to change over from the Metropolitan Constabulary to the Royal Marine police force, a change from a civilian force to a military force? On page 46 there is a curious item. The Estimates speak of a reduced number of men, and yet in regard to supplies which may well nave been purchased from combines like Lever Brothers or the British Tobacco Company—I refer to soap and tobacco—we find an increase of nearly £8,000. I put these two or three points forward for some explanation. They are minor points, no doubt, but they do not show that we are tending towards that reduction which is claimed by those who are presenting these Estimates.

9.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) was very anxious about the meat supply of the Navy, and wants British beef for British tars. He made a speech on the subject which, I am sure, will endear him to British farmers. The position is, however, that even if the Admiralty bought nothing but British meat it would mean only infinitesimal assistance for our own farmers, the quantities required being so small. The total quantity of meat, other than tinned, purchased annually in the British Isles for His Majesty's Navy is approximately 3,125 tons. All of this is frozen meat, with the exception of fresh pork, which is probably less than 2 per cent. of the whole, and a negligible quantity of fresh beef bought at some of the smaller ports which are situated at a distance from commercial cold stores. Fresh meat is, of course, bought for the naval hospitals, the total annual cost of that being £7,000. All the frozen meat purchased last year was of British Empire origin, coming from New Zealand and Australia, and since supply from the Board of Trade stocks ceased in 1922 it has been necessary on only very few occasions to purchase foreign—Argentine—frozen meat, on account of the insufficiency from the Dominions. During the past year the market prices of fresh meat were a little over 85 per cent. above the cost of frozen meat, and it is estimated that a complete return to fresh meat would have entailed an extra cost of £130,000. Another point to be remembered, altogether apart from the question of extra cost, is that frozen meat will always be necessary, as the cold storage plants on the sea-going ships are not capable of freezing fresh meat. On the whole, therefore, and even if the Navy were prepared to face the extra cost of reverting to British meat, I do not think it would really be of any substantial benefit to British farmers.

Mr. LAMB: Why will you not take that risk?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, because the cost is prohibitive from the point of view of the Admiralty. The Navy's requirements of meat are not much more than 0.15 per cent. of the country's consumption. I agree that by purchasing
fresh meat individual farmers might benefit, but the cost to the country would be a very serious one.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned meat other than tinned meat. Can he give us the figure for tinned meat supplied to the Navy?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have not the figure with me at the moment, but I will certainly supply it to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. A. M. WILLIAMS: If the quantity supplied is so small, why is the cost prohibitive?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If we purchased fresh meat instead of frozen meat the extra cost would be £130,000 a year.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is the total value of the 3,000 tons of meat mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am afraid I cannot give that information. I am quite unable to calculate what the farmer would get by the change suggested, although no doubt he would gain. The Admiralty are responsible for the maintenance of the Navy, and we must be as economical as possible. The use of fresh meat instead of frozen meat would make the maintenance of the Navy very much more expensive, and for these reasons it is impossible for us to have fresh meat. I notice hon. Members who represent constituencies which are interested in the fishing industry, are anxious that the Navy should have as much fish as possible. Where the standard ration is adopted, the men can buy their own fish if they like, but, where general messing is the practice fish is served when possible. We know from the personal experience of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull that when ships are at sea the men and officers can catch fish for themselves.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, only when in harbour.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am afraid that I cannot give a reply to the point put to me by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. R. Young), but I can assure him that the matter is occupying our close attention, and I will let him know the result. I am not aware of the
contract to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. Hilton) referred, but I shall be glad if he will give me full details, and I will certainly look into the matter. With reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), relating to tobacco supplies, the increase in that item is due to the introduction last year of cigarette tobacco. This tobacco has now become very popular, and large quantities are taken up on repayment. Soap is included in the same item, and therefore the increase may be due to an increased use of soap as well as tobacco. I have been asked a question why we have been substituting Royal Marine police for the Metropolitan police. The reason is that it is much more economical to use the Royal Marine police than the Metropolitan police, and we are particularly well satisfied with the change.
With regard to the questions put to me about yard craftmen, they serve under seafaring conditions, and the hours they work on vessels are not limited. When the vessels are in home ports the men are usually required to be on board during the working hours of the shore establishment, but the hours they are on board cannot always be restricted to this extent. It is of course impossible to limit the hours when the vessels are at sea proceeding from one port to another. I have now answered all the questions put to me to the best of my ability.

Mr. POTTS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us whether the naval officers are fed on the same quality of foreign meat as the rank and file?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The same meat is supplied throughout the ship.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we have an explanation of this Vote?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The necessity for this additional grant arises from the fact that the "shadow" cut that was made at the time the Estimates were prepared was larger to the extent of about £500,000 than events have proved
to have been warranted. This cut applied particularly to the Contract and Works Votes, and was intended to discount in advance the amount under-spent due to delay on the part of the contractors and to industrial troubles. The effect of this could obviously not be estimated with any precision. The system has been followed for some years and has been justified by the results. There is always the possibility that the cut may have been too large, and, consequently, that there may be a liability for an additional grant. This was made clear by the First Lord in his statement last year at the time when the Estimates were issued. Although the expenditure on the contracts and works services exceeds the actual money provision made for those particular services, it is not necessary to ask for any additional money for them if the House will allow the Admiralty to make use of money saved on other services and extra receipts which have come to hand. These together are sufficient to balance the extra provision required for the Contract and Works services, and it is for this reason that a token Vote has been presented.
The circumstances in which these savings on expenditure, and the extra receipts, arise, are briefly stated in the Estimate itself. The savings are spread over a number of Votes, and I do not think they call for special remark. The extra receipts are mainly the result of supplies made to the Dominions and to other Departments on a repayment basis. It is always difficult to forecast the extent of the demands that may be made, and no opportunity is lost of disposing of materials that are surplus to Admiralty requirements. The savings made and the extra receipts are sufficient to cover also the extra expense that was thrown upon us owing to the repairs necessary to the "Dauntless," as well as the payment of £50,200 which it has been agreed shall he made to the Greenock Corporation in respect of their claim for the cost of providing additional power facilities for national work during the War.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are any of the savings due to the dropping of the two cruisers last year?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No.

WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [14th MARCH].

Resolutions reported,

1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1928, the sum of £90,147 18s. 7d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

2. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, the sum of £1,908,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

3. "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, the sum of £169,488,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. A. M. Samuel.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL,

"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine, and one thousand nine hundred and thirty," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Nine o'Clock.